


















V. 




t 






































■* 
















■ 
















* «. 

I 

I 

f ' 
















» 

l 

• 

. 

ij m 

1 . •) . 

- 

♦ } -;r,. | r 






<y. < 


«*4 v ' 

& • 

*» * 

OLD AND NEW 

•LOGIC; 

r r iNG 

AN ATTEMPT TO ELUCIDATE, 

LORD BACON DELIVERED THE HUMAN MIND FROM ITS 
2000 YEARS’ ENSLAVEMENT UNDER ARISTOTLE. 


By JUSTIN BRENAN, 

ti 

luf/ior of “ Composition and Punctuationfyc. 


V > 

LONDON: 

rilOMAS TEGG, 73, CHEAPS1DE. 
TEGG AND €0. DUBLIN. 

1839. 

\*\ ' A. 




is __ 

t&.'h+n Cm^e-rm 2/n >,, 




HOLDEN, PRINTER* A'FtfEY* STREET, DUBLIN* 






RWiJz 6 34 


PREFACE. 


For some years past I have been 
occasionally writing essays, on different 
subjects, in the hope of being able, one 
day or other, to publish them. Of these, 
the present work is a specimen. But, 
as I proceeded, so many considerations 
pressed upon me that I could not confine 
it within the ordinary limits, and it insen¬ 
sibly swelled into a small book, instead 
of being only part of one containing 
several essays. 

This will account for some circum¬ 
stances that seem to require explanation. 
Had I originally intended it for a separate 
volume, I should have been more atten¬ 
tive to form and arrangement, and to what 
regards chapters or particular divisions. 
It is evidently deficient in that regular 
connexion which constitutes a book , as the 
extended Appendix shows. To make 
some amends, therefore, for the conse¬ 
quent inconvenience in perusal, I have 



PREFACE. 


given a longer table of contents than so 
small a work might otherwise appear to 
demand. 

What I have now said will also, as I 
should hope, excuse me in another respect. 
At first I designed only to explain, for 
ordinary capacities, that long enslave¬ 
ment of the human faculties, which is 
rarely understood by common readers. 
My intention was to confine myself solely 
to that, but as I went on, and being 
obliged to consult authors of various con¬ 
flicting opinions, I found the strongest 
arguments for the syllogistic theory so 
weak, that T could no longer i entrain 
myself. On that point, I considered that 
it would be a dereliction of my duty not 
to express my real sentiments, and I, at 
length, proceeded to language of the most 
unreserved and decided character. This 
has made my treatise appear, in some 
instances, rather inconsistent. I was at 
first afraid of my own prejudices against 
that theory, and I spoke of it in qualified 
terms, compared to what I afterwards 
used. Yet, on reviewing the whole, I 
did not make any alteration—not even in 
the title. It is perhaps best to begin 
somewhat mildly, and to gradually in¬ 
crease the strength of expression. I am 
glad, therefore, that I did not think of 


PREFACE. 


Dr. Whately’s work on Logic till I was 
pretty far advanced. Had 1 looked into 
it earlier, 1 might not have been able to 
speak of Aristotle with proper respect, 
for, though 1 was never peripatetically 
inclined, I must own that I approached 
him with timidity. But, on reading Dr. 
Whately’s treatise, I gave all my scruples 
to the wmd. Never was there a work 
better calculated, in my opinion, to make 
any thinking man a decided Baconian, 
though its object is directly the reverse. 

As to attaining the end for which I 
originally took up my pen, I must of 
course wait with patience for the result. 
But, let that be what it may, 1 deem no 
apology whatsoever necessary for my un¬ 
dertaking this work. No one will deny 
the importance of explaining, for humble 
capacities, the 2000 years’ enslavement 
of the human mind, and, as 1 can boldly 
assert that every similar attempt has 
hitherto failed, it should be followed up 
till successful. 

My strictures on the classics flowed 
naturally from considering Logic as a 
subject of tuition, and from viewing them 
as also materially affecting the morals. 
They will probably appear extraneous, 
for 1 admit that they came unexpectedly, 
and did not form any part of my first 


PREFACE. 


design. It is for the public to pronounce 
on the propriety of their introduction here, 
and to decide, whether the time is come 
when the satyr-like absurdity of praising 
and teaching pagan and Christian morality, 
both together in the same breath, should 
be reprobated. 

The public being quite unused to find 
an author without some tincture of vanity, 
and as I have no ambition to set myself 
up for an exception, I may be allowed to 
mention, that I now follow the principles 
laid down in my work on “ Composition 
and Punctuation.” But, as it would be 
unpardonable to enlarge on them here, I 
shall only observe that their principal 
features are, the exclusion of the colon, 
semicolon, parenthesis, and notes in the 
text pages. 

JUSTIN BRENAN. 


Dublin, December, 1838. 


CONTENTS. 


PRELIMINARY EXPLANATION: 

Common defect in familiar description - 9 

Notice of Watts’Logic - - - - 11 

Pitiable state of the logical pedant - - 13 

Author’s pretensions for undertaking the 

present work - - - - - 14 

ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE 2000 YEARS’ 
CAPTIVITY OF THE HUMAN MIND. 
Definition of Logic < - - - - -15 ' 

A common misnomer explained - - - 16 

Philosophy should he separated from Logic - 17 

- On the origin of Logic ft - - - - - 1 

* Rise and progpfess of Aristotle’s Logic and philo- ^ 

sophy -.19 

First symptoms of the decline of his philosophy - 21/ 
Stagirite, Peripatetic and Organon explained ' *. . 23 
Biographical notice of Aristotle, and list of books 

constituting his Logic - - - - 23 

•■Short notice of Bacon’s Logic - - - - 24 

Reflections on his frailties - 25 

- Sketch of Aristotle’s Logic - - - - 27 

Remarks on the ordinary syllogism - - - 27 

Negative syllogism ------ 29 

Prosyllogism and Sorites - - - - - 30 

Aristotle’s Categories, Interpretation, Topics and 

Sophisms ------ 32 

Vicious tendency of the sophisms - - - 36 

Alexander the Great, and the sophisms - -37 

Sophisms exposed the dishonesty of Aristotle’s 

logical system - - - - - 39 

Aristotelian mania fairly described - - - 40 



CONTENTS. 


Page 

Early opposition to Aristotle—Lucian’s satire on 

his Logic ------ 41 

Lucian’s sarcasm put in regular syllogistic form - 44 

■Sketch of Bacon’s Logic.46 

—Induction described ------ 46 

"Applicable to abstract matters - - - - 47 

<Orand difference between the old and new Logic 49 
—-A prevailing error - - - - - - 51 

~ Remarks on the elements of Logic - - - 52 

.-^.Definition the first step to Logic - - - 52 

Ancient errors about definition - - - - 53 

Aristotle’s famous definition of Motion - - 54 

Ideas—their study a branch of Logic - - 55 

Why definition should be the first step to Logic - 56 
- Syllogism used in common argument - - 57 

--Induction preferable to the syllogism - - - 58 

Conclusion of a syllogism superfluous according 

to Ivaims ------ 59 

Locke’s contempt of the syllogism - - - 60 

Watts and the Bible.61 

Bacon’s 44 idols ” - - - - - 62 

—No real Logic can be independent of the idols - 63 

Difference as to difficulty between the old and 

new systems ------ 66 

Aristotle’s errors ------ 67 

His rejection of the Pythagorean astronomy - 68 

Syllogism a most contemptible means of proof, as 
shown by Aristotle himself 


- 69 

Great injury that he did to Logic—Socratic Method 69 

- 71 

72 


Loss and recovery of Aristotle’s works 
Incidental remark on his sophisms - 
Kaims’ remark on his ignorance in mechanics 

and definition ------ 72 

Reid’s notice of his errors - - - - - 74 

Remarks on the injury that he did to astronomy, 

and to philosophy in general - - - 75 

Copernicus—wrong date here, corrected in p. 203, 75 
Academics and Pyrrhonists, and Des Cartes - 76 

-Injury to chemistry by Aristotle’s Logic - - 78 

Christianity suffered by it also - - - - 79 

Ten extracts from Reid condemnatory of Aristotle 81 


CONTENTS. 


APPENDIX. 


ARISTOTLE’S LIFE: 

Views of his friends in defending his private 

character - - - - - 90 

ARISTOTLE’S “ OBSCURITY ”: 

Not very blamable in that respect - - 94 

ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN INDUCTION BY 
EXAMPLE: 

Sir Humphrey Davy, and the safety lamp - 96 

Aristotelian proces to discover a safety lamp 101 
A PEEP INTO PHILOSOPHY: 

Demolition a favorite employment of phi¬ 
losophers - - - - - -106 

Notice of Ontology or Metaphysics - 106 

Proposed remedy for their striking defect - 108 

Locke and Owen - - - - - 111 

Other branches of philosophy - - - 113 

Diogenes—why dubbed a philosopher - 114 

Synchronous ideas - - - - - 115 

Author’s proposed remedy strengthened by 

Bacon - - - - - 116 

RECEIPT FOR ANSWERING A FAMOUS 
ARISTOTELIAN QUESTION: 

Heathen Mythology—its origin & extirpation 118 
Base character of its divinities - - - 120 

Belief of the ancients in it - - - 122 

Detestable nature of it altogether - - 123 

Reflections on its total extirpation - - 124 

Astrology—belief in it continued to a late 

period ------ 127 

Witchcraft—a deplorable instance of the 

slow progress of reason - - 128 

Considerations on the learned world con¬ 
curring in gross error - - - - 132 

Locke on “ learned ignorance ” - - 136 

SOME ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON THE 
HEATHEN MYTHOLOGY: 

Inconsistent proceedings of the Greeks - 139 

Christian religion and heathen mythology - 141 




CONTENTS. 


Page 


Ancient poetic “ machinery ” - 142 

Rollin’s singular conclusion about heathenism 143 
Remarks on Philoctetes, Odyssey and ASneid 146 
Proposal for the better elucidation of the 

classics - - - - - -149 

SLOW PROGRESS OF BACON’S LOGIC: 

College systems respecting Logic - - 152 

Whately’s Logic —his opinions on induction 153 
Maintains that Logic has no concern with 

the discovery of truth - - - 155 

Example of induction opposed to syllogistic 

Logic - - - - - -158 

Dishonesty of the syllogism - - - 160 

Power and influence of colleges - - 160 

Slow movements of learned bodies exemplified 161 
Why logical treatises are generally Aristotelic 162 
Adam Smith’s dislike of peripatetic Logic - 164 

Various remarks on the Whatelyan Logic - 166 

Logic rarely understood by college students, 

affirmed by Whately - - - - 168 

Symptoms of the decline of peripatetic Logic 169 
Real and pro Jorma examinations - - 171 

Advice to parents respecting Logic - - 172 

Logic-forcing system, and its consequences 173 
Practical results of Bacon’s Logic - - 174 

THOUGHTS ON A NEW SYSTEM OF LOGIC : 
Induction the only rational Logic - - 176 

Illustration of Bacon’s induction and idols 

recommended by Reid - - - 177 

Bacon’s Organon might effectively supersede 

Aristotle’s - - - - - 179 

Why Bacon should be written anew - - 180 

Extracts from Reid in favor of induction - 182 

Symptoms of decline in college opposition - 185 

Notice of Bacon’s New Atlantis - - 186 


BACONIAN and ARISTOTELIAN SYSTEMS 
CONSIDERED AS TO THEIR CONSE¬ 
QUENCES: 

Question to parents respecting syllogistic 

Logic - - - - - - 188 

Christian and pagan Logic • • - - 189 




CONTENTS. 


Page 

Spartan Boy.190 

Useful hint to parents - - - - 190 

COMPLETION OF BACON : 

England called on to finish his great philo¬ 
sophical structure - - - - 192 

Whewell supports the completion - - 193 

BACON AND ARISTOTLE COMPARED : 

Great superiority of Bacon - - - 194 

Aristotle’s ignorance - - - 197 

Medicated baths—an instance of Bacon’s 

modesty ------ 199 

Bacon’s estimation of his own countrymen 201 

Evinces weakness, but not ignorance - 201 

His Christian Paradoxes justly reprobated 202 

Services of Aristotle and Bacon - - 203 

Copernicus—error in date of his great work 

corrected 203 

LONDON UNIVERSITY : 

Expected to teach and illustrate Bacon - 20S 
CONCLUSION : 

Author’s reliance on female exertions - 209 
Ladies recommended to read Dr. Brown - 210 
Horrid depravity of Virgil and Juvenal - 214. 
Urgent necessity for maternal interference 

respecting Logic and classical tuition - 215 

Horace shown to be an Atheist - - 216 

Tate’s Horace and Sanadon’s—Quarterly 

reviewers.218 

Peripatetic, as applied to our Saviour - 220 
Strauss openly attacks Christianity - - 222 

Final appeal to mothers - 223 


? 


\ 




OLD AND NEW 


LOGIC. 


PRELIMINARY EXPLANATION. 

There are always many persons of humble 
attainments, or rather of confined education, who 
are, nevertheless, exceedingly anxious for some 
acquaintance with the higher branches of litera¬ 
ture. But, however laudable their desires, they 
are most commonly disappointed. If they in¬ 
quire of the learned they are just as wise as 
before, for, some how or other, your learned 
men can seldom make themselves intelligible, 
except to those who are conversant with the 
matter in question—that is, if you already know 
it they will explain it further! The only resource 
then is books, but, though when professedly 
intended for the commonest capacities, they are 
found equally useless to the inquirer, unless he 
be a man of more than ordinary penetration and 
comprehension. 

Now, I take all those failures to arise from 
want of examples. Without them, explanations 
will avail only for the few. Rules may be laid 
down unexceptionably clear, and still they will 
be of little general use. Suppose that our gram¬ 
mars contained nothing else, the child, though 
aided by a master, would learn but very slowly 
indeed. Even the article, which is perhaps the 
B 





10 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


simplest part of all, is much better comprehended 
by an example, and accordingly, after giving 
the rule that a is used before words beginning 
with a consonant, and an before words beginning 
with a vowel or h mute, there is added as a man, 
a horse, a cow—an ass, an eel, an hour. That 
little elucidation is a wonderful help to the un¬ 
derstanding, and the comprehension is only in 
proportion to such helps. By some strange 
fatality, our grammars are remarkably sparing in 
examples of who and whom , and of the functions 
of the participle and past tense, and it is for this 
reason that we so often hear those, on whose 
education money has not been denied, saying 
I seen, I have went, he sung, who did you give 
it to ? and such like violations of concord. When 
a friend corrects them, and they feel ashamed, 
they refer to the grammar, but there, seeing 
only rules which they cannot now lay themselves 
down to study, they give the thing up altogether, 
though a few well-explained examples would 
enable them to guard against such errors. 

Yet, whatever may be said of former times, 
the present certainly cannot be charged with 
any churlish opposition to the spread of know¬ 
ledge, especially the last fifteen or twenty years, 
literature is now so decidedly a trade, and com¬ 
petition is so active, that any speculation pro¬ 
mising remuneration is eagerly embraced, and 
able writers present the sciences with every 
attraction of plainness, for the gratification of 
those who desire information without painful 
study. Yet, owing to the want of that assistance 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


11 


to which I have alluded, they are seldom satis¬ 
fied, notwithstanding all those efforts to suit 
every degree of capacity—the grand cardinal 
defect is still unremedied. There is hardly any 
thing more interesting to those persons whom I 
described in the opening of this essay, than 
ancient and modern philosophy. This is very 
natural. When they frequently read of “the 
i.uman mind being kept enslaved for two thou¬ 
sand years, till Bacon broke the fetters that 
Aristotle had imposed on it,” their curiosity is 
strongly excited, and no wonder, by an asser¬ 
tion so full of importance. They seek with 
avidity every source that promises familiar infor¬ 
mation, but they find them either too obscure, 
or devoid of instruction on the very points which 
they wish to have clearly explained. Watts’ 
Logic, though the object was, as he says himself, 
not to suffer the art to be engrossed by school¬ 
men, and to make it plain to all, gives them 
no satisfaction. It is now a hundred years before 
the public, and I think I may assert, that no 
one ever learned from it the difference between 
the systems of Aristotle and Bacon. In fact it 
almost studiously keeps that out of sight, inso¬ 
much that the reader who knows nothing pre¬ 
viously of logic, is led to think that the author 
is describing a plan invented by himself. Though 
it is not my business to criticise his work, I may 
be permitted to remark, that it is strongly biassed 
towards the complicated machinery of Aristotle, 
and that is no recommendation as a book of 
instruction for youth. But several treatises have 


12 OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 

appeared within the last fifteen or twenty years, 
the sole object of which was, to explain to com¬ 
mon understandings the difference between the 
systems of Aristotle and Bacon, and yet not 
one of them has succeeded. This I can take 
upon me to boldly assert. For I have questioned 
several who read them attentively, and they have 
after some hesitation, for no one likes to be thought 
dull or stupid, frankly avowed, that they could 
not comprehend wherein lay that so much vaunted 
emancipation from two thousand years of intel¬ 
lectual bondage. Now I propose to supply this 
great desideratum, that is, I propose to attempt 
that in which so many others, in comparison to 
whom I am as an ignorant man, have failed! 
If I very properly here put a note of admiration, 
how much more will my masters be surprised at 
my presumption, when I state the following 
particulars:— 

I know very little of logic, because I always 
disliked it—I mean that which is taught in col¬ 
leges. Looking on it as a deception, and a 
dreadful waste of valuable time, how can I do 
otherwise than dislike it ? My great consolation 
is, that so few understand it, and that the num¬ 
ber of empty pedants is consequently much dimi¬ 
nished. There are perhaps 15000 youths in 
the great colleges of England, Scotland and 
Ireland, and, if all of those understood the logic 
that they are there taught, it would indeed be a 
great calamity. Fortunately, however, not more 
than one in five hundred do understand it, and 
most of them forget it entirely after leaving col- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


13 


lege. But there are always some who recollect 
just as much as serves to make them ridiculous, 
and woe to the youth who fancies he can wield 
that of which he has only got a glimpse. For 
he then most assuredly becomes either a miserable 
sophister, or an unmeaning pedant, who perverts 
all his other acquirements to the most unprofitable 
purposes. His constant observation is, “ I see 
no logic in that,” while the plainest people are 
laughing at him, because he is himself the weak¬ 
est arguer imaginable. When forced to yield, 
or rather when overpowered, by unanswerable 
objections, he scorns to avow conviction, and 
exclaims, “ still I do contend that the premises 
are false,” because the poor creature’s head is 
stuffed with syllogistic notions of major and 
minor propositions, or conclusions affirmative 
and negative, which, if he had marshalled well, 
he is certain must have secured him a victory. 
He therefore thinks that he suffered only a 
negative, not a positive, defeat, and thus the 
vain dupe continues in darkness all his life, 
unless some ray of light may haply dart on his 
clouded intellect, and show him the futility and 
absurdity of his logical illusions. 

Since Aristotle’s philosophy has been exploded 
by all sensible men, our colleges dare not con¬ 
demn Bacon openly, and yet they do it covertly, 
by treating his simple structure as a thing hardly 
worth notice! The truth is that they cannot 
bear simplicity. They wish to make every thing 
mysterious and complicated so as to appear sci¬ 
entific, and the showy system of Aristotle has, 


14 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


consequently, with them peculiar charms. Yet 
they will rail, like others, against the difficulty 
of eradicating old prejudices—they will exclaim 
against farmers and country people for their 
slowness in adopting obvious improvements, 
while they are themselves so immoveable that it 
has been frequently asserted, and with justice 
too, that colleges have considerably retarded the 
advancement of science. Well and truly did 
Bacon observe, when he gave his Organon to 
the world, that he wrote not for his age but for 
future centuries. Above two of those centuries 
have since elapsed, and we are still, with all 
our boasting, u under the fetters of Aristotle.” 
We are, like the catholics under George III, 
only partly relieved—our complete emancipation 
is yet to come. 

Having thus avowed both my ignorance and 
dislike of school or college logic, I may give an 
American guess that the learned, who may hap¬ 
pen perchance to look at my work, will not read 
a line further, but that is of little concern to me, 
since it is not for them that I write. I could 
wish, however, to detain them a moment while 
I say, that the best proficients are not always 
the best teachers. He who is profoundly 
acquainted with an art, or a science, will often 
think that matters, which are quite clear to 
himself, must be so to others, and thus he 
dismisses, without an explanation, what is 
very difficult to the vulgar. Now as I know 
only just as much of logic as is sufficient for 
common information, and, as I know by myself 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


I.) 


tlie points that my reader desires to have eluci¬ 
dated, there is no danger of my embarrassing 
him with my learning, and I think that I may, 
therefore, attempt that in which my superiors 
have failed. 

I must also observe, that the language of 
those who undertake a familiar explanation of the 
2000 years’ bondage is always too high-flown. 
They begin fair enough, but, the subject being 
necessarily of an intellectual nature, they soon 
forget themselves, and seem to lose all recollec¬ 
tion of the capacities that they are addressing. 
Their well-meant labor is thus, as regards their 
main object, commonly thrown away, while I- 
am tolerably secured against such an error. For, 
should I be seduced into a flight, it cannot last 
long. Not having talents for fine writing, I 
must soon descend again to homely language, 
and my humble readers have, therefore, a good 
guarantee that I can never rise much above their 
comprehension. 


AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS COMMONLY 
CALLED THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE AND 
BACON: ADDRESSED TO THOSE WHO CANNOT 
UNDERSTAND THE DESCRIPTIONS OF IT THAT 
ARE USUALLY GIVEN IN BOOKS. 

DEFINITION OF LOGIC. 

Logic is the art of reasoning, or of conducting 
an argument or inquiry according to regular 
rules, so as to arrive to the conclusion at which 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


I(> 

we aim, in a scientifically progressive manner. 
Its object is, or ought to be, the discovery of 
truth, for, when it deviates from that, and looks 
only to victory, it degenerates into sophistry. 
It may also be defined as the cultivation of 
reason, for, though a man of an uncommonly clear 
head and luminous judgment may, without any 
knowledge whatsoever of logic, come to a sound 
conclusion, yet still, to say nothing about such 
qualifications being extremely rare, some assist¬ 
ance might, be useful, just as an exquisitely 
natural fine ear may be further improved by an 
acquaintance with the rules of music. The 
utility of logic is beyond any reasonable doubt, 
and the only question that can arise is, whether 
it can be taught. Into that it would be prema¬ 
ture to enter, because one object of what follows 
is, to put you in possession of the efforts that 
have been made for that purpose. 

A COMMON MISNOMER EXPLAINED. 

Before proceeding further, it is extremely 
important to explain what I venture to designate 
a misnomer, and that is calling Aristotle and 
Bacon’s systems of logic “ philosophy/’ With 
the learned this is no inconvenience, but I know 
that it is very embarrassing to others. You 
have, every one has, some idea of philosophy, 
and, if you think that it is the exposition or 
practice of some profound speculations or 
doctrines, your notion is perhaps substantially 
correct as that of the most eminent scholar. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


17 


Logic being the art of arranging our thoughts, 
and of conducting an investigation, cannot be 
philosophy, since it is only a general plan for 
explaining anv kind of philosophy or science. 
You would laugh at him who should say that a 
pack of cards was whist, because you know that 
it is only the means of playing that game, just 
as a piano is not music, but an instrument for 
its performance. Aristotle may have written, 
and did actually write, philosophical treatises, 
but they should not be confounded with his 
logic, which was, at most, only a general gram¬ 
mar for the guidance of all philosophers. But 
this word philosophy, which is so often abused, 
has such charms with bookmen, that they are 
marvellously fond of it, and will lug it in on 
every possible occasion. Now that I have ex¬ 
plained its misuse when treating of logic, you 
will be no longer puzzled to draw the distinction, 
for it is really of no consequence when known- 
But this little explanation must be very satisfac¬ 
tory to you, because the commentators on 
Aristotle’s system will sometimes, when tired of 
repeating this word philosophy a thousand 
times, call it his logics, and then you think that 
they are speaking of two different things. I 
may here remark, just for amusement, that the 
pluralising of logic is no proof of judgment in 
the learned, for they would smile at hearing a 
'petit maitre talk of kind attentions, while their 
own logics are equally ridiculous. 

I shall, however, be particular hereafter in 
distinguishing logic from philosophy, because that 
B 2 


18 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


is extremely necessary for our immediate 
purpose. It was the logic of Aristotle that kept 
the human faculties so long enslaved, and it 
was the better logic of Bacon that achieved 
their liberty. The philosophy of Aristotle did 
certainly great injury, because it was replete 
with grave errors, but then, according as those 
errors were discovered, the injury was lessening, 
whereas his logic, being a vicious system of 
general reasoning or argument, affords no 
prospect of relief except in the rejection of it 
altogether. 

ON THE ORIGIN OF LOGIC. 

Man, acquainted with writing, cannot be long 
advanced in study or science without thinking 
of logic. It is the natural result of a tolerable 
progress in civilisation. To say nothing of the 
vulgar multitude, the many blunders of the 
educated, and the erroneous conclusions to 
which they arrive in argument, would suggest 
the necessity of some fixed plan. A love of 
order is the first fruits of a departure from the 
savage state, and this goes on gradually till it at 
last extends to the regulation of our very 
thoughts. It is probable that rhetoric, which 
means forcible speaking, gives the first hint of 
logic. When one orator invariably leaves a deeper 
impression than others, and wheu it is found 
that this superiority does not altogether consist 
in his words or gestures, however elegant or 
appropriate, nor yet in strength of argument, it 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


19 


as discovered that his power is attributable to a 
better arrangement of his topics, and a more 
connected detail, by which he rivets the attention 
of his hearers, and influences them to the end of 
his discourse. This, I say, might lead to logic, 
but, as that is only a surmise of my own, it 
matters little whether the inference be erroneous 
or true. 

RISE AND PROGRESS OF ARISTOTLE’S LOGIC 
AND PHILOSOPHY. 

As we know but little of ancient Egypt, 
where science first dawned, we may as well 
turn at once to Greece. It is there that we 
have the first record of logic. She had her 
poets, historians, philosophers, science scholars, 
painters, sculptors, architects, musicians, and a 
refined theatre, when the rest of the world was 
in a rude state. Accordingly we find that, at a 
very early period, several of her learned men 
put forth different systems of logic, but they all 
soon fell into the shade when Aristotle’s 
appeared. He was a philosopher of a matchless 
grasp of mind and capacious intellect. Gifted 
with a rare sagacity, and a wonderful knowledge 
of the human heart, he penetrated as it were 
into futurity, and he furnished a system so 
artfully contrived that its mere developement is 
an exercise of skill. To use it as an art in itself. 
Each expounder plumes himself on the supe¬ 
riority of his illustrations, and what could be 
more gratifying to the pride, the vanity, and the 


20 . 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


weakness of man than a system which left victory 
either undecided or disputable ? Aristotle knew 
this well, when he gave his fatal present to pos¬ 
terity. It was worse than the fabled box of 
Pandora, for that contained hope, but our 
philosopher’s pernicious gift provided no allevi¬ 
ation for its immeasurable evils. He wrote his 
ever-memorable work probably in 350, B. C., 
so that it is now about 2188 years’ old, and yet 
its influence, despite of Bacon’s acknowledged 
refutation, is still very considerable ! 

Aristotle’s success was equal to his mighty 
genius. His philosophy, taken in the most 
comprehensive meaning, spread through Greece 
even before his death, notwithstanding the oppo¬ 
sition of many eminent rivals, who felt themselves 
humiliated at being unceremoniously thrown 
aside. It was adopted by the Romans, who 
indeed hardly excelled in any thing but the art 
of war, and gigantic structures, though they 
borrowed the principles of architecture from 
Greece. After their colossal empire was dis¬ 
solved, it began to influence the Christians, who 
had previously been rather inclined towards 
Plato, whose system of reasoning was of a more 
amiable and persuasive character. In the sixth 
century it appears to have lost ground, but, in 
the next, its operation is described as something 
like enchantment. The entire learned world 
was occupied in commentaries, glosses and dis¬ 
sertations on it, which served, however, to 
render it only the more dark and unintelligible ! 
Translations of it were made into Arabic and 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


21 


Latin—it was revered alike by Christians, jews, 
mahometans or other sects, and it spread like a 
plague, as it proved to be, not only through 
Europe, but also into such parts of Asia and 
Africa where there were any men who pretended 
to learning. In some instances kings com¬ 
manded that no other system should be read or 
taught, and, to show its extraordinary ascen¬ 
dency, the power even of a pope was unavailing, 
as was proved by Innocent 111. Having, 
through the solemn council of Lateran, prohibited 
the use of Aristotle’s physics and metaphysics 
which are, properly speaking, his philosophy, it 
was soon found necessary to rescind the order. 
This will appear astonishing when we consider 
that the pope’s mandate then, in matters of 
apparently less consequence, shook the greatest 
potentates on their thrones. But the truth is 
that, like Swift’s big and little Endians in Lilliput, 
where eleven thousand persons cheerfully suf¬ 
fered death sooner than break their eggs at the 
smaller end, men were so bewitched by this 
philosopher’s writings that they would deem it 
nothing less than martyrdom to die in its defence ! 
Their cry was for Aristotle entire, as John Bull 
clamors for “ the whole constitution and nothing 
but the constitution,” though it is well for him that 
some inconvenient parts of it have bepn altered. 

At length, after blood had been actually shed 
in disputing about Aristotle, the many important 
discoveries by a friar, Roger Bacon, together 
with those of the mariner’s compass and America, 
proved some of the great philosopher’s dogmas 


22 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


to be false, and even his most ardent admirers 
were forced to admit, that he was not always 
infallible. The invention of printing having, by 
the cheapness of books, made reading accessible 
to thousands who were before debarred from it, 
there was a great increase of that portion of 
society deemed learned, and of course a new 
augmentation to diversity of opinions. In half 
a century after printing, Copernicus, a catholic 
priest, demonstrated the true theory of the earth 
and planetary system, and this helped much to 
shake the supremacy of Aristotle, as it proved 
incontestably that he was wrong in several of 
his assertions, and often presumptuous in his 
inferences. Luther, “ the great champion of the 
Reformation,” who had been at one time his 
supporter, now attacked him violently, and 
chiefly because he was pretty generally favoured 
by the catholic clergy, which was almost 
enough to determine his opposition. Many 
eminent catholics, though opposed to protestant- 
ism, joined in the Aristotelian war, and it now 
seemed easy to pull the great ruler from that 
throne which he had occupied for almost twenty 
centuries. 

But who was to perform the daring feat ? 
The throne could not be left vacant, and the 
difficulty was to find a substitute for the mighty 
despot. There must be philosophy, and, 
without some plan of reasoning, there can be 
none. But when those doughty assailants began 
to cool a little, and to look around them, they 
found that they were only a mob, who rail 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


23 


against a bad government, though unable to 
devise a better. Aristotle’s philosophy had 
been successfully attacked, because a good part 
of it was proved to be erroneous, but though 
many exposed, no one yet was able to remedy, 
the defects in his system of logic. Here we 
shall leave it for a moment, in order to note a 
few' things that may be satisfactory to you 
hereafter. 

Aristotle, whose Greek name is Aristoteles, 
is sometimes called the Stagirite, because he 
was born at Stagira on the borders of Macedonia, 
and the place was deemed honored, if not sacred, 
by his birth, which was in 384, B. C. After 
being many years under Plato, he set up a 
school of his own at Athens with great success. 
His followers were called Peripatetics, from a 
Greek word signifying to walk about, because 
he lectured and instructed his pupils as they 
moved to and fro in the Lycaeum. His great 
work on logic is called the Organon, or Organum, 
which signifies a machine or instrument. It 
consists of fifteen distinct books or treatises— 
one on Categories, one on Interpretation, two 
on first Analytics, two on last Analytics, eight 
on Topics, and one on Sophisms. Some are 
supposed to be lost, but those mentioned now 
constitute his Organon or Logic, and there 
is usually prefixed to them an Introduction by 
Porphyry, a Platonic philosopher, and a noted 
enemy of the Christians, who died A. D. 304. 
Aristotle opened his school in 335, B. C. being 
then 49 years’ old, but he had private pupils 


24 OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 

long before. Gillies says that he died in 323 
at 63, but if he were born in 384, that would 
make him out only 61. On those points, the 
accounts do not agree exactly. 

It is necessary that I make some remarks on 
the word Organon, as it will hereafter occur very 
often. For your greater convenience, I always 
spell it as in the Greek, with the termination on , 
though when Latinised, and preceded by the 
word novum, new, it requires um. Very 
eminent classical scholars do, however, fre¬ 
quently write Novum Organon, whether through 
inadvertence or choice 1 know not, and I have 
determined to use no other orthography except 
in quotations. 

SHORT NOTICE OF BACON’S LOGIC. 

The man who was destined to dethrone 
Aristotle at length appeared. This was Francis 
Bacon, Lord Verulam, and Viscount St. Albans, 
but most commonly called Lord Bacon. He 
was born in London, January 22nd 1560, and 
died at Highgate near that city, April 9th 1626, 
at the age of 66, and was buried at St. Albans. 

Bacon’s great logical work was called 
“ Novum Organum Scientiarum,” or a new 
method of studying the sciences. In that he 
demonstrates that Induction is the natural, and 
the only rational mode of analysis or investiga¬ 
tion. This was the talisman that opened the 
door of Aristotle’s mystic tabernacle, and 
discovered that its wonderful effects arose, as all 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 25 

attempts at human mysteries must, from some¬ 
thing like a show-box contrivance which, by 
pulling a string, exhibits many pleasing delusions 
when viewed through a glass outside . 

This great work, first printed in 1620, was 
preceded by another on the advancement of the 
sciences or learning, which our author deemed 
necessary, in order to prepare the public mind 
for his Organon. It ought to have been called 
the deficiencies of science, for its chief object is 
to enumerate the defects and omissions in the 
various attempts of former writers and inquirers. 
Some of those chasms have been since supplied 
from the hints of Bacon, and it was certainly a 
most valuable present to science and the literary 
world. 

Why his Organon or logic has not made so 
rapid a progress as it ought, after being published 
almost two centuries and a quarter, will be 
noticed in the proper place. 

Bacon is at once the glory and disgrace of 
England ! Enlightened to a degree that rarely 
falls to the lot of man, he was stained with some 
of the most revolting vices. His conduct 
towards his generous friend and benefactor, the 
unfortunate Essex, is an instance almost un¬ 
paralleled in our annals of the blackest 
ingratitude—that crime for which nations 
provide no punishment, and which religion only 
can check. His taking of bribes from suitors, 
while he sat as chancellor, and which he was 
obliged to admit when found guilty, is a 
sickening instance of depravity in the highest 


26 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


judge in a civilised country, and his general 
meanness to obtain his ends, and his fulsome 
adulation of the great, are absolutely disgusting. 
Those who wish for a specimen have only to 
read, in the second paragraph of his Advance¬ 
ment of the Sciences, addressed to James I., 
that part beginning with “ For I am assured,” 
and ending at u miracle,” or down to “ Hermes” 
or “ philosopher,” which is a tissue of the vilest 
sycophancy and falsehood. But the whole 
paragraph is, indeed, a model for the sorriest 
poetaster when inscribing his wretched doggerel 
to some person of rank. And this sample of 
reckless mendacity from him who opened the 
road to truth ! 

Infinitely worse characters than Bacon are 
every where found, but our indignation is 
particularly raised against him who could 
practise vice while he was illuminating the way 
to right reasoning. The parliament did their 
duty in condemning him, and perhaps James 
is excusable for remitting the sentence. If one 
who invented a telescope, by which men and 
animals could be distinctly seen in the moon, 
were to commit a serious crime, would not all 
nations petition to spare him who had made 
such a valuable contribution to science ? And 
yet Bacon’s Organon is of much more import¬ 
ance to the world. 

The frailties of this highly gifted man have, 
nevertheless, their use. They serve to lower 
our pride, to show us the value of that humility 
so energetically recommended by Christ, and to 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


27 


correct a belief that had before very generally 
prevailed, that it was impossible for a master¬ 
mind and surpassing intellect to be superlatively 
mean, selfish and dishonest. 

sketch of Aristotle’s logic. 

The basis of this system is the syllogism. 
This is a form of couching the substance of 
your argument or investigation into one short 
line or sentence—then corroborating or support¬ 
ing it in another, and drawing your conclusion 
or proof in a third. Thus, suppose that you 
wound yourself up to such enthusiasm about 
virtue as to think that, in order to enforce it, all 
sins, as being transgressions of virtue, should be 
punished by death, you would condense the 
marrow of your doctrine into some such shape 
as this :— 

1. Every sin deserves death, 

2. Every unlawful wish is a sin, 

3. Therefore every unlawful wish deserves 
death. 

These are usually named, the major, minor 
and conclusion, but there are great differences 
with respect to the two first lines. Sometimes the 
first is called the premises, and sometimes the 
first premiss, and the next the second premiss. 
The first is sometimes called the proposition or 
subject, or affirmative, and the next the predicate, 
and sometimes the middle term, but, in analysing 
a syllogism, there is a middle term, and a 
predicate too, in each of the lines ! Often the 
minor is first, and the major next, but, though 


28 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


some of those distinctions are mere varieties of 
name, just as we say house or mansion indiffer¬ 
ently, others are of essential consequence, for, 
according as the syllogism is constructed, the 
minor may be actually first, and the major next, 
and so of other differences. I merely make 
those remarks because I know that you are 
puzzled when you read any account about 
syllogisms, and you often think the printer has 
made some mistake, or transposed the names of 
the different lines. 

After having composed your syllogism, you 
proceed to explain and enforce its truth in 
detail, but, as you go on, a necessity for new 
syllogisms will arise. For every new point 
or assertion must have that form at least implied 
—that is, it must be reducible into that shape, 
though you need not parade it in separate lines 
like blank verse. In this way you arrive, step 
by step, at the end of your investigation or 
inquiry, but, if you have an adversary to com¬ 
bat, the labor is considerably increased. For 
he may deny your premises, which means that 
he denies the justice or legitimacy of your 
syllogistic affirmations, and, as there are regular 
rules for the construction of all kinds of syllo¬ 
gisms, you must rectify yours if his objections 
be well-founded, or otherwise you will be 
deemed to have been defeated, and the victory 
will be awarded to him. But, if you be both 
equally expert tacticians in this logic, you may 
go on till each is tired, and then the contest 
ends like a drawn battle. 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


29 


To one who has not studied this system, 
nothing appears so absurd, as an argument, 
than the syllogism. You see two dogmatical 
assertions, which nobody is bound to believe, 
and then a conclusion drawn, with all the 
arrogance of one who seems to think that his 
word is a law not to be questioned. It appears, 
however, to be very simple and easy, but, take 
care ! it is anything but simple. Aristotle’s 
plan had three figures or kinds of syllogisms, to 
which the celebrated Galen, in about five hun¬ 
dred years after, added a fourth, to supply, as 
he said, an omission of the great founder. 
Each figure has 64 modes , or forms of con¬ 
struction, making in all 256. It is true that 
our modern logicians generally reject Galen’s 
figure, and seldom use more than about 12 of 
each of the three others, but even that would 
make 36, and to master which completely 
would, I assure you, require more study than 
you could well believe. I forbear entering into 
any review of these, because that is not my 
province, and besides you must recollect that 
my bargain with you is of quite a different 
nature. Another reason is that, while it would 
require a volume in itself, it would be incom¬ 
prehensible unless you laid yourself down to a 
most serious and irksome study. I shall only 
notice two principal distinctions in syllogisms — 
that they are either affirmative or negative. Of 
the first you have already an example—the 
other is used to deny or refute something that 
you think is untenable, and it must have the 
word not, as thus :— 


30 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


1. Every thing virtuous is praise-worthy, 

2. Some pleasures are not praise-worthy, 

3. Therefore some pleasures are not virtuous. 
Or thus :— 

]. Whatever is not praise-worthy is not vir¬ 
tuous, 

2. Some pleasures are not praise-worthy, 

3. Therefore some pleasures are not virtuous. 

But a kind of negative syllogism may be so 

constructed as to dispense with not, as in this 
example: — 

1. No work of God is bad, 

2. The natural passions and appetites of men 
are the work of God, 

3. Therefore none of them is bad. 

This is, for our purpose, enough on ordinary 
syllogisms, which you perceive have only three 
sentences or propositions, and it is indeed gene¬ 
rally taken that, if they require more, they are 
vitiated. , But Aristotle, who did not like to do 
things by halves, foreseeing that cases would 
occur requiring more, has obligingly furnished 
other kinds of syllogisms, where half a dozen 
sentences may be used, and they are generally 
classed under the head of compound syllogisms. 
Of these, the most remarkable are the Prosyllo¬ 
gism and Sorites, and I give a description and 
example of each from Dr. Watts :— l 

“ A prosyllogism is when two or more syllo¬ 
gisms are so connected together, that the con¬ 
clusion of the former is the major or minor of 
the following: as, blood cannot think, but the 
soul of man thinks; therefore the soul of man 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


31 


is not blood: but the soul of a brute is his 
blood, according to Scripture ; therefore the 
soul of a man is different from the soul of a 
brute.” 

Nothing saves this example from being down¬ 
right tomfoolery but “ according to Scripture,” 
because we admit it to be of divine authority. 
Even with that help, it appears to be a very 
meager kind of argument to prove the immor¬ 
tality of the soul, for that is evidently its drift. 
The doctrine of Plato, though a pagan, is more 
convincing, and we need not wonder that young 
men, who learn logic by such illustrations, are 
much worse reasoners than if they had never 
known any thing of it whatsoever. 

ie A Sorites is when several middle terms are 
chosen to connect one another successively in 
several propositions, till the last proposition 
connects its predicate with the first subject. 
Thus, all men of revenge have their souls often 
uneasy; uneasy souls are a plague to them¬ 
selves ; now to be one’s own plague is folly in 
the extreme: therefore all men of revenge are 
extreme fools.” 

You have now, I should think, a notion of 
the part that the syllogism plays in argument, 
for I do not look to or expect more. With this 
Aristotle took extraordinary pains, and he dis¬ 
tinctly claims the invention, that is, as to theory 
and doctrine, and a regular system for its 
application or use. The syllogism was always 
known, as I shall show in another place, but he 
was the first who anatomised it, and who made 


32 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


it the principal material of the most gorgeous 
structure of logic that was ever erected. Yet 
the syllogism was the subject of his “ Analytics” 
only, and, if you look back to the list, you will 
find two works before them on u Categories” 
and on “ Interpretation,” concerning which, 
and the other books in rotation, we shall say a 
few words. 


Categories. 

Though I thought it right to begin with the 
syllogism, as being the actual foundation and 
main support of Aristotle’s logic, he, or perhaps 
whoever arranged his Organon, commences 
with the categories, as a preliminary step in the 
art of reasoning. Their object is to divide or 
class, under ten heads, whatsoever can come 
within human apprehension. Anything like an 
intelligible explanation would require a great 
deal of writing, and I shall only say that, like 
chemistry, they reduce what is whole into its 
component parts. You may, however, have 
some idea of their use from this description—■ 
ie As every soldier belongs to some company, 
and every company to some regiment ; in like 
manner every thing that can be the object of 
human thought, has its place in one or other of 
the ten categories; and, by dividing and sub¬ 
dividing properly the several categories, all the 
notions that enter into the human mind may be 
mustered in rank and file, like an army in the 
day of battle.’ ’ 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


33 


These categories are at once the admiration 
and the torment of logicians. They must ever 
be admired as a prodigious effort of genius, but 
they are exceedingly difficult of management. 
Several attempts have been made to render them 
more tractable, but without much success. 
Locke reduced them to three, but, in doing 
that, he left the whole thing defective, nor have 
the more recent attempts at general divisions 
been much more successful. Every one admits, 
that a regular distribution of things under proper 
classes or heads, is a great help both to memory 
and judgment, but Aristotle’s project was too 
vast to be embraced by man—the human 
powers are unequal to so bold a flight into the 
regions of methodical delineation. 

Now whether you understand all this or not 
is of little consequence at present. You can, at 
least, perceive by it that Aristotle’s genius was 
of immense extent, and it is my duty to impress 
that on your mind. We rarely leave one 
extreme without going into another. Those 
who fancy that they have caught the spirit of 
Bacon’s logic think that, unless by decrying the 
abilities of his great predecessor, they can never 
sufficiently show their sincerity and conviction, 
but that only betrays their ignorance, and I wish 
to put you on your guard against such an ex¬ 
posure. 

Interpretation or Definition . 

The work on “ Interpretation” is a necessary 
preparation for the study of any logical system, 

c 


34 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


and I venture to say that it ought to be placed 
first. It gives instructions for the proper under¬ 
standing of every thing that enters into the 
composition of speech, and that is of great 
importance to right reasoning. Hence it is 
unavoidably a kind of philosophical grammar, 
and it actually begins by examining what is a 
noun or a verb—an affirmative or negation, and 
even speech itself. It embraces a variety of 
views and definitions, all tending to the correct 
use of words, and at length proceeds to pro¬ 
positions, future contingencies, and various dis¬ 
sertations that make up, as it were, the science 
of language. The writers on logic borrow largely 
from this work when treating of judgment and 
propositions. 

Topics. 

After the Analytics come the “ Topics.” 
Of this work, it is very difficult to explain the 
nature to a non-logician, because the design 
appears to be a further extension, development, 
or dissection, of the categories, which you have 
already seen are not easily comprehended. 
Aristotle’s method here is not generally ap¬ 
proved of, but, though the logicians do not 
follow it, they draw their topics, or heads of 
argument, from this work, which is a rich 
storehouse of all possible distinctions. All that 
can be said on one side or other of every ques¬ 
tion is collected, as it were, into one grand 
inexhaustible arsenal, “from which all future 
combatants might be furnished with arms offen- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


35 


sive and defensive in every cause, so as to leave 
no room to future generations to invent any 
thing new.” What a creative genius does 
Aristotle constantly exhibit! Need we wonder 
that his bitterest opponents are forced to admire 
his wonderful ingenuity ? 

The Topics conclude with a code of laws for 
managing syllogistic disputations, on the part of 
both assailant and defendant—“ from which it is 
evident that Aristotle trained his disciples to 
contend, not merely for truth, but for victory.” 

Sophisms. 

We are now arrived at the “Sophisms”— 
the last part of this famous Organon or logical 
machine. This is what has thrown the greatest 
shade on Aristotle’s honesty of intention, and 
which has tended most to shake his stately 
fabric. Not content with a labyrinth of simple 
syllogisms, sufficiently perplexing to both parties 
—not content with adding to this a maze of 
complex, conjunctive, disjunctive, relative, con¬ 
nective* categorical, and compound syllogisms—* 
not content with laying down an insidious code 
for the management of those syllogisms, by 
which the disputants might, like two equally 
skilful fencers, tilt at one another with impunity 
—not content, I say, with all those allurements, 
he gives his sophisms as the last or finishing 
step to deception. It is possible, though barely 
possible, that he might have conceived a syllo¬ 
gistic scrutiny to be a good means of detecting 


30 


OIiD AND NEW LOGIC. 


error, but it is very hard indeed to believe, that a 
man of his penetrating intellect could write his 
sophisms with a view to aid in the discovery of 
truth. They are truly a master-piece of im¬ 
posing ingenuity. He introduces them as 
fallacies , which of course every honest reasoner 
would be glad to detect, but, in the end, they 
prove to be weapons for both attack and defence, 
and by which truth may be rendered unavailing. 
It is from this that we have our word sophistry, 
which is explained in the dictionaries “fallacious 
reasoning”—a very remarkable meaning when 
we consider, that the inventer proffered it as a 
protection against fallacy! 

The friends of Aristotle, and they are still 
very numerous, have strained hard to defend his 
sophisms, but they appear to have a bad cause 
in hands. For, if they maintain his honesty of 
intention, it is at the expense of his abilities, 
which they will not allow to be called in ques¬ 
tion. One who is anxiously impartial says, 
“ It was probably Aristotle’s aim, to reduce all 
the possible variety of sophisms, as he had 
attempted to do of just syllogisms, to certain 
definite species : but he seems to be sensible 
that he had fallen short in this last attempt.” 
Now it is not easy to discover where he seems 
“sensible ” of any failure. For after having, 
with his usual confidence, enumerated the various 
kinds of sophisms, he goes on with new instruc¬ 
tions in the art of managing syllogistic disputes, 
and his peroration or conclusion is a specimen 
of anything but diffidence. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


37 


But it is, nevertheless, possible, that the 
analysis of such a prodigious ramification of 
syllogistic contingencies, and all the consequent 
justifications, might have been too much for 
even the gigantic powers of an Aristotle—why 
then should he, as a man of integrity, promul¬ 
gate a system which was manifestly pernicious 
by its imperfection ? I fear that we must agree 
with a commentator who says, “ But how is it 
possible that a man of his capacity could long 
remain ignorant, how insufficient a syllogism is 
for discovering any latent truth ? He certainly 
intended his system of logics, chiefly, if not 
solely, for disputation: and if such was his 
purpose, he has been wonderfully successful; 
for nothing can be better contrived than that 
system, for wrangling and disputing without 
end. He indeed in a manner, professes this to 
be his aim in his work De Sophisticis elenchis.” 
Observe well that this work is his book on 
Sophisms. 

You will now be surprised to learn, while 
reading of “ the human mind being kept in 
fetters by Aristotle for 2000 years,” that the 
real value of his sophisms was known even in his 
lifetime, as will appear by the following anecdote 
of Alexander the Great, who was educated by 
him, and for whom he always had the highest 
respect and the warmest affection. Some per¬ 
sons having travelled from Macedon all the way 
to Persia with complaints against Antipater, 
Alexander observed, that they would not have 
made so long a journey had they received no 


38 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


injury. Cassander, son of Antipater, replying, 
that their long journey was an argument against 
them, as trusting that witnesses would not be 
brought from such a distance to give evidence 
of their calumny, Alexander, smiling, said, 
“ Your argument is one of Aristotle’s sophisms, 
which will serve either side equally well.’ 
This shows that he at least was not gulled, 
though instructed from the very lips of the great 
logician himself. But the enlightened are 
always few when error is popular. 

Why do I dwell so much on these sophisms ? 
It is because they cannot be displaced without 
ruining the whole system, though they show how 
its chief support, the syllogism, might be effec¬ 
tively vitiated ! Here xYristotle, like some over- 
eager witnesses on a trial, proved too much, 
though his followers were not bright enough to 
perceive the blunder. Vefuban, after demon¬ 
strating how the strongest places could be taken, 
regretted that he had done so much for their 
attack, and thought to counteract the effect.by 
showing how they could be rendered impregna¬ 
ble, but he found that he had foiled himself 
already by the efficiency of his plans for siege. 
Aristotle after constructing, with immense labor, 
a huge fortress of syllogisms, taught how to 
demolish it, or, in other words, to undermine his 
own entire system of logic ! But, as this is a 
matter of great importance, we must examine it 
plainly, and lay aside all figurative language. 

The Aristotelians say, that the sophisms serve 
only to prove the weakness, or defective con- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


39 


struction, of a syllogism. If we grant that we 
must yield, because nothing surely is more 
reasonable than to have means of meeting a 
cunning or dishonest opponent, and of preventing 
him from baffling truth by an artful, and de- 
ceptiously contrived, syllogism. But we cannot 
admit such an explanation, because the sophisms, 
while they detect either designed or accidental 
misconstruction, furnish the defender of false¬ 
hood with new and endless, yes, endless 
resources for opposing truth, and show the folly 
of attempting to reason under a system mainly 
supported by such a flexible thing as the 
syllogism. 

It were well for Aristotle’s fame if he had 
locked his sophisms up in his own breast. For, 
though they kept the learned world long con¬ 
tending, they ultimately overthrew his system 
by proving the poverty of its fabrication. He 
did not calculate badly, however, on the weak¬ 
ness of mankind, and the slow progress of 
reason and judgment, as the duration of his 
power shows. But had he stopped at the 
Topics, and heaven knows there would then 
have been quite enough about syllogisms, his 
reign might probably have been further extended. 
The inefficiency of the syllogism might be seen, 
as indeed it actually was, before Bacon, but the 
sophisms exposed its insidious nature, and men 
the more gladly embraced the new logic, which 
delivered them from a system of unmanly 
stratagem, in direct hostility to all notions of 
equity. 


40 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


Aristotelian mania fairly described. 

This glance at the books comprising the 
whole of Aristotle’s Organon or logic, though 
not exactly belonging to an ordinary view, will, 
nevertheless, forward our main object, and I 
doubt not that it has afforded you some assist¬ 
ance. I shall now make some remarks on that 
Aristotelian mania which is represented by our 
•writers in such astounding terras. Doubtless 
you think, as I once thought, that nations were 
all convulsed, and as in a state of warfare, in 
contending about Aristotle, but they were no 
such thing, for they remained as quiet as at 
present. Those “ terrible” contests, of which 
we have heard so much, were confined to the 
learned, and the people took little or no part in 
them, for this very plain reason, that they did 
not understand what the combatants were about. 
Besides you must keep in mind this important 
fact, that the learned were then very limited, 
for reading, now so common, was deemed a 
high accomplishment previous to printing, and 
consequently the numbers engaged in those 
strifes must have been small. But they appear 
formidable when aided by glowing language, 
just as Homer’s Catalogue of the Ships makes 
the Grecian forces seem innumerable, because 
he takes care not to mention the amount. 
Even now, when almost every peasant can 
read, there are important questions agitating the 
scientific world, of which very few have heard, 
as for instance the parallax of the fixed stars. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


41 


You might go into every genteel company, and 
not find one present who knows any thing at all 
of the matter, or yet what parallax means. 

But we must admit, that what the learned are 
doing is of great consequence to nations. They 
are the instructors of the people, and whatever 
errors they make are disseminated throughout. 
No one ever heard of a country where the lower 
orders were better informed than the higher. 
You must not think, however, that the general 
state of enlightenment is in proportion to that of 
the upper ranks, for any gross error promulgated 
amongst the people is, unfortunately, very hard 
to eradicate afterwards, and it remains firmly 
engrafted on them long after being exploded by 
men of discernment and education. I need now 
only instance witchcraft, ghosts and fortune- 
telling, because I shall have occasion to touch 
on the subject again. 

Further exposition of the Syllogism . 

It is right, in justice to the world, that you 
should know that there was always great oppo¬ 
sition to Aristotle, and that he did not impose 
quite so extensively as our flaming accounts 
might lead you to think. There were always, 
thank God ! some sensible men in the world 
who saw through the cheats of mystery, though 
they sometimes wanted either ability or influence 
to stem the torrent of blind credulity. In all 
ages, since Aristotle wrote, he has been ridi¬ 
culed, lampooned, satirised, or more seriously 


42 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


attacked, which shows at least that there were 
never wanting men who saw the real tendency 
of his system, and who would not debase their 
understanding by worshipping his phantom of 
logic. I may mention Lucian, a witty Grecian 
author, who died A.D. 180. In a humorous 
account of a supposed sale of slaves , or old 
philosophers, he introduces Chrysippus, a fol¬ 
lower of Aristotle, to be sold, and Mercury acts 
as auctioneer. Chrysippus, after the buyer has 
asked him many questions which we shall pass, 
says, 

You deride me, good Sir, but take care that 
I do not shoot you with an indefinite syllogism. 

Buyer. And what evil is to be feared from 
that weapon ? 

Cl trys. Doubt, and silence, and distraction of 
mind. But what is greatest I can, if I wish, 
instantly make you a stone. 

Buyer. How ! a stone ? 

Chrys. Thus. Is a stone a body ? 

Buyer. Yes. 

Chrys. Why then, is not an animal a body ? 

Buyer. Yes. 

Chrys. Are you an animal ? 

Buyer. I think so. 

Chrys. Ergo, you are a stone being a body. 

Buyer. Not at all. But liberate me, I pray 
you, and make me a man again. 

Chrys. It is not difficult—be then a man once 
more. Tell me, is every body an animal ? 

Buyer. No. 

Chrys. What! is a stone an animal ? 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


43 


Buyer. No. 

Chrys. But are you a body ? 

Buyer. Yes. 

Clirys. Being a body then are you an animal ? 

Buyer. Yes. 

Chrys. Therefore you are not a stone, being 
an animal. 

Buyer. You have done well since already my 
legs, like those of Niobe, were chilled and 
stony ! But I will, however, buy you. 

It is curious to observe that Lucian, here, 
seems to give the merit of the syllogism to 
Chrysippus, though he lived a century after 
Aristotle, who claims the invention. Mercury 
next calls the great Peripatetic himself, and then 
puffs him off as being the wisest philosopher in 
the universe, who knows, amongst many other 
wonderful things, how long a gnat lives, to 
what depth the sea is rendered pellucid by the 
sun, what sort is the soul of oysters, that man is 
a risible animal, but that an ass is not, nor fit 
for building or sailing. In consequence of so 
many valuable qualifications, he is knocked 
down at a higher price than Chrysippus brought. 
Yet Lucian is particularly severe upon him, for 
he ridicules, through Chrysippus, his syllogistic 
logic, and derides his philosophy by a ludicrous 
exhibition of himself. But, though the raillery 
is certainly overstrained, it shows the unfitness 
of the syllogism for discovering truth. Indeed 
it exposes its pliancy, and its accommodating 
nature, so plainly that I think you will derive 
some information by seeing the thing in regular 
syllogistic form:— 


44 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


ft 

1. Every body is an animal, 

2. Every man is a body, 

3. Therefore every man is an animal. 

Here man is proved to be an animal, and then 
our syllogist goes on :— 

1. Every stone is a body, 

2. Every man is a body, 

3. Therefore every man is a stone. 

Man is now proved to be a stone, but, having 
before proved that he is an animal, he can be 
easily restored to animation thus :— 

1. A stone is not an animal, 

2. Man is an animal, 

3. Therefore man is not a stone. 

The great Locke, in his Human Understand¬ 
ing, b. 3, ch. 10, sec. 8, approves of Lucian’s 
satire, yet our peripatetics will scout it as a 
broad caricature of the syllogism, but, if they 
lay aside their prejudices, they will find that it is 
not a very gross perversion. We admit that 
the syllogism is useful, and that it is necessary, 
in its proper place , and they ought to concede 
that a theory, mainly depending on it for 
support, is better calculated for disputation than 
for the detection of error, or the verification of 
any asserted truth. 

Lucian again takes occasion to attack the 
syllogism in his “ Philosophers revived,” where 
he represents them in a great rage, and bringing 
himself to trial, for having sold them as slaves. 
But there were hundreds of much abler op¬ 
ponents, who literally shook both the logic and 
philosophy of Aristotle to pieces, and that too 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


15 

at the risk of suffering, for some of them were 
severely punished by their respective sovereigns 
for daring to question his infallibility ! Do not 
be surprised, however, that they all failed in 
overthrowing him. I told you before that there 
must be some kind of logic, and, as none of 
them offered a better substitute for Aristotle’s, 
it was in vain that they exposed its weakness 
and futility. Were it possible for a man to 
demonstrate, and that so clearly as to convince 
every one, that our present system of astronomy 
was erroneous, we would still stick to it, unless 
he furnished a more rational one in its stead. 
A score or two of learned men have attacked 
Newton’s Attraction and Repulsion, but none of 
them have devised a superior scheme, and so they 
all lie unheeded. We are not generally satisfied 
with our theory of the tides, but the moon w'ili 
retain her influence till some better agent for the 
ebb and flow of the sea shall be discovered. So it 
was with Aristotle’s logic. Long and long ago 
was its ineptitude exposed, but no one could 
undertake to fill its place. The glory of that 
achievement was reserved for Lord Bacon. 

You are by this time, I flatter myself, 
beginning to comprehend the “ 2000 years of 
mental slavery,” and also to understand some¬ 
thing about the unfitness of Aristotle’s logic for 
unravelling error or discovering truth. Before 
you can, however, have that clear conception 
at which I aim, there are some other explana¬ 
tions necessary concerning his system, but these 
I reserve, because they will come in the more 
D 


40 


OLD AM) NEW LOGIC. 


instructively when treating of his great and 
successful opponent. 

SKETCH OF BACON'S LOGIC. 

This is much more easily explained and com¬ 
prehended than the old system. Its basis is 
Induction, which is thus described in the Library 
of Useful Knowledge, No. 10, in an article 
specially devoted to a “ familiar ” exemplifi¬ 
cation of the Baconian logic:— 

“ The grand principle which characterizes this 
great work [Bacon’s Organon], and by the 
proper use of which its author proposes the 
advancement of all kinds of knowledge, is the 
principle of Induction , which means, literally, a 
bringing in; for the plan it unfolds is that of 
investigating nature, and enquiring after truth, 
not by reasoning upon mere conjectures about 
nature’s laws and properties, as philosophers had 
been too much accustomed to do before, but 
by bringing together , carefully, and patiently, a 
variety of particular facts and instances; view¬ 
ing these in all possible lights; and drawing, 
from a comparison of the whole, some general 
principle or truth that applies to all/' 

From this, which you would do well to get 
off by heart, you will already perceive that there 
is a great difference between the new and old 
logic. The first is the logic of nature, while 
the other is that of artifice—it is the logic of 
truth, while the other is that of stratagem and 
dexterity. It disclaims all skill, except what 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


47 


legitimately belongs to the art of reasoning, 
while the other does not scruple to put an appo- 
nent down by cunning or legerdemain. We 
may indeed emphatically say, lhat one is really 
the art of reasoning, and the other that of ignoble 
disputation. 

Induction teaches that, when you set about 
any discussion, investigation, inquiry or argument, 
you must collect all the information that you can 
on the subject, and, in doing this, you must 
spare neither time nor trouble. You must then 
examine each fact deliberately, compare one 
with another, and observe the agreements or 
disagreements. Then you must review them 
all in relation to how they respectively support 
each other, reject those that do not appear to be 
sufficiently authenticated, or which present mani¬ 
fest contradictions, and, having thus laid as it 
were a foundation of general materials for your 
argument, you proceed to a more particular 
investigation, and at length draw from the whole, 
strengthened by your own observations and 
reasoning, the conclusion which is your object 
to demonstrate. Some say that you proceed 
from particulars to generals, but that does not 
seem so plain to ordinary understandings. You 
certainly come at last to a general conclusion, 
and, though my explanation may be objection¬ 
able, it cannot I think lead you astray. 

The process is the same on abstract matters, 
or such as offer no “ facts or instances,” such as:— 

Whether the soul leaves the body instantly on 
the last sigh, or remains for a short time after. 


48 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


Whether beasts think at all, or whether a 
horse, when he stands still for an hour in the 
street, is, in respect to any thought, only like 
ourselves when asleep and not dreaming. 

Whether an oak tree has any life which it feels 
and enjoys, or whether it is, as to that respect, 
only like a stone or a piece of metal. 

Whether fishes and insects which never utter 
any cry feel as much pain, when wounded, as 
animals having the power of crying—in other 
words, whether such power of crying is or is 
not some alleviation of pain, and whether there 
is any compensation, in a lesser sensibility, to 
silent creatures. 

Such questions admit of only conjectural or 
presumable conclusions, because, as they cannot 
be supported by facts or instances, we know 
that we can never arrive at any positive proof. 
Yet they are, notwithstanding, applicable to 
induction. What though we can produce no 
facts, many learned men have written much on 
them, and, by collecting, arranging and com¬ 
paring what they have said, we might make out 
an instructive investigation. For you must not 
think, like the ignorant multitude, that such 
discussions are quite useless, since they often 
incidently lead to important and unlooked-for 
discoveries or elucidations. There are other 
questions apparently similar, and yet they cau 
hardly be called abstract, such as, Whether is 
the moon inhabited. We do certainly know be¬ 
forehand that, till glasses be invented sufficiently 
powerful for seeing living creatures there, the 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


49 


question can never be positively decided, yet 
still we are by no means destitute of facts to aid 
us towards a reasonable decision. We know 
that the moon has days and nights, and changes 
of seasons—that she has hills, mountains, vallies, 
plains, and other diversities similiar to our earth— 
that she is enlightened by the sun, and that our 
earth gives her thirteen times more light than she 
gives us—these, and many other things that I 
omit, must be assumed as facts because they have 
been satisfactorily demonstrated, and we may, 
therefore, very fairly conclude that such a body, 
having all the requisites for habitation, was not 
made solely and entirely to give us a weak and 
partial substitute in the sun’s absence. At the 
same time, while it is quite rational to conclude 
that she is inhabited, we must treat contrary 
opinions with deference. Some maintain that, 
though she might have been once habitable, she 
is now bound up in such a terrible frost as to be 
incapable of sustaining animal life. It is certain 
that when her influence here is the greatest, that 
is, when she is in the full, the nights are always 
remarkably cool, even in the warmest weather, 
but, as I am far from entering into any discussion, 
I mention this only to show you, that there can 
be no true logic without temper, patience, mo¬ 
deration, and the dismissal of all prejudices. 


Grand difference between the New and Old Logic. 

Before we go further, it is necessary to glance 
at this slightly. The most striking difference is. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


50 

that, in the new or Baconian system, you begin 
at the bottom and work upwards to the top, 
whereas, in the old or Aristotelian, they began 
at the top and worked downwards to the bottom. 
I think you ought now to comprehend what that 
means. Formerly they disdained, as it were, 
common labor in any exertion of the mental 
faculties, and therefore, in a disquisition or 
argument, they began by discussing the most 
intricate parts of the subject, and frequently 
wandered into topics that had nothing to do with 
it at all, which brought them into frivolous dis¬ 
putes about words, and nice distinctions of no 
consequence whatsoever. In this way, and in 
arranging their syllogisms, they lost so much 
time that they hardly ever dived into their subject 
—insomuch that one might say, that they began 
and finished their inquiry at the top, and did 
not work downwards. Hence their conclusions 
were commonly arrogant or ill-founded. 

Directly contrary is the new system. After 
a proper preparation, which shall be hereafter 
explained, you begin, by the patient and labo¬ 
rious method of induction, to clear your way to 
the top, where you arrive step by step, and thus 
gradually complete your inquiry. Does not this 
appear to be the more natural plan, and is not 
there a strong probability that your conclusion 
will be the more rational ? 

In the old system, they set out with presump¬ 
tion and cock-crowing, for their object was 
victory—in the new, modesty is, or ought to be, 
the leading feature, otherwise induction is dis- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


51 


torted, because its object is the discovery of truth, 
and it inculcates that you should rather be 
defeated than victorious when defeat convinces 
you of having been in error. 

The old system allows of stratagems and 
hitches without end—the new permits no advan¬ 
tages to be taken over an adversary, when it is 
plain that he erred merely through inadvertence. 

A ’prevailing error. 

I have before remarked, that we seldom leave 
one extreme without running into another. 
Some persons, and they are more numerous 
than could be wished, hearing Aristotle cried 
down, and being relieved from his cumbrous 
theory of syllogisms, and impressed with the 
simple nature of induction, think that they are 
emancipated from all the trammels of logical 
rules, and that they are now free to conduct an 
argument as they please. This is a great 
mistake, and it has produced too many pre¬ 
tended logicians. Every art must have its rules, 
and, as reasoning is an art, we cannot dispense 
with certain precepts. Those laid down by 
Aristotle can never be wholly thrown aside 1 , and, 
though his syllogistic system is justly replaced 
by a better, it does not follow that he should be 
entirely rejected. He traced the rudiments of 
logic with such a comprehensive hand that, 
however they may be modified or improved, 
they will always furnish materials for the 
construction of any other system. Bacon 


52 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


himself leaves a great part of his system 
undisturbed—insomuch that the Novum Or¬ 
ganon is but a review of its main defects, with 
the remedies proposed for their rectification. 

Remarks on the Elements of Logic. 

Every study must begin with the humbler or 
rudimental parts. In music we commence with 
the simple notes—in grammar with the parts of 
speech, or in reading with the alphabet, and so 
logic has likewise its progressive steps. What 
seems first necessary is Definition. This teaches 
that you affix a settled meaning to your words, 
and so use them consistently throughout your 
discourse or investigation. But this applies 
only to such words as are of obvious importance 
in your inquiry, and not to those that cannot 
possibly be misunderstood or mistaken. Sup¬ 
pose that ou were writing or speaking on an 
ordinary subject, as the impolicy and miseries of 
war, you might use the words perception , con- 
ception and apprehension , indiscriminately, 
because they would not affect the drift of your 
inquiry, but, if on a metaphysical dissertation 
on our mental faculties, those words become of 
great consequence, and you must then be precise 
in your choice and meaning. Ordinarily you 
may say the perception, the conception, or the 
apprehension, of such a thing, but now you can 
give no latitude or scope to the sense that you 
intend to convey. Perception may be “the 
consciousness of an object when present,” and 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


53 


conception “ the forming- an idea of the object 
whether present or absent,” while apprehension 
may be found too loose and vague for any 
specific application. Here then you must 
define clearly what you mean by the word you 
adopt, whether it be perception or conception, 
and stick to that given meaning invariably 
throughout, or, if you have occasion for both, 
you must assign them their separate and 
respective functions. Your opponent has a 
right to call upon you for an exact definition of 
any leading word that you use, but, when you 
give that satisfactorily as regards your own 
meaning, he is not now allowed to question that 
further, though it may be quite at variance with 
his own notions. This is a striking feature in 
the new logic, and which it may be acceptable 
to explain more particularly. 

Formerly, they were so fascinated with hair¬ 
splitting, and nice dissections, that every 
discussion was almost sure to involve a gram¬ 
matical contest, and the parties appeared more 
like pedagogues, squabbling about trifling dis¬ 
tinctions, than scientific men seriously engaged 
in coming at truth. It mattered not how 
clearly one explained certain words or terms 
—the other might dispute the propriety of 
his definitions, and thus, in such silly altercations, 
they wasted a great deal of time, wandered 
away from the main object of inquiry, and not 
unfrequently lost sight of it altogether. They 
required words to be defined which were 
incapable of a better definition than what the 


54 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


words themselves implied. Aristotle defined 
Motion, “ An act of a being in power, so far 
forth as it is in power,” which was, as a sensible 
writer observes, “ unintelligible jargon,” and 
some moderns, still infected by the old school, 
attempt an amendment by calling it “ change of 
situation.” Now one is fully as impertinent and 
obtrusive as the other. Every one knows what 
motion is. A stone during its flight when cast by 
the hand or a sling, or rolling down a precipice, 
or falling from a high tower, is in motion. So 
is a man while walking or running, a wheel 
turning round, a ship sailing, water running, or 
any thing in—what can we say better after all 
than in motion ? Some wretched bungler might 
substitute movement , but that would not be half 
so good as to call it the opposite of rest. True 
logic does not require, nay it prohibits, any 
attempt to define, by additional words, what is 
already sufficiently clear, for it generally follows 
that some of those explanatory words must be 
defined, and then comes that notable absurdity, 
definitions of definitions ! Would not power 
itself seem to require here a definition ? 

You must take notice that dictionaries will 
not serve for definitions. The meanings there 
given are of too general a character, and their 
plan requires that every thing, however well 
known, must be explained. Thus they give 
Motion, “the act of movement,” which is very 
correct, though it may not answer the logician. 
I have somewhat enlarged on this in order to 
convince you, that Definition is an essential 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


i)D 


point in the art of reasoning, and I must now 
inform you that it is of great extent, and that it 
embraces numerous considerations on which this 
limited essay will not allow me to touch. From 
the slight view taken you may perceive, however, 
that its difficulties have been greatly smoothed 
by the light derived from Lord Bacon’s 
Organon, and that the straw-cavilling, and the 
unprofitable minute subdivisions, of Aristotle, 
no longer encumber our road to this important 
department of logic. 

Ideas are the next branch. This contains 
rules for the proper classification and arrange¬ 
ment of all the operations of the mind. By this 
you learn the relation of one thing to another— 
the necessity of a just separation when that is 
necessary for clearness, and in short of avoiding 
all those incongruous associations into which 
men, not accustomed to reason methodically, are 
usually betrayed. This requires such profound 
study, and it necessarily extends to such a 
variety of heads or particular kinds of ideas, 
that it would be useless to attempt a description 
unless in a treatise devoted to the purpose. 1 
shall therefore only remaik that it is by far the 
most toilsome part of logic, though Lord Bacon 
has done much to render it less thorny and 
intricate. But I will not dismiss it, however, 
without observing, that I think it ought to be 
placed after Definition, and not before, as is 
usually the case. I am afraid that this arises 
from that blind veneration of Aristotle, which 
has made men revere his very errors, and see' 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


56 

danger in a departure even from his routine. 
Because he, though probably his collators, 
placed the Categories before the Interpretation, 
so our modern writers on logic must needs 
follow the same order, without daring to question 
its propriety. True they give this reason, that 
definition is only a further help to the compre¬ 
hension of ideas, but I will venture to call it the 
hornbook of logic, and, if that be admitted, it 
should undoubtedly be first. It seems to be 
naturally the preliminary step to logic, and, as it 
is not very hard to be understood, it would be a 
good preparation for the much more difficult 
part, that of ideas. No study is so dry or so 
vapid as logic. In pursuing Latin, Greek, 
algebra, mathematics, the idlest and dullest 
youth knows that, if he persevere, he will learn 
them, but, in the dreary desert of logic, the most 
attentive and diligent see but little reward for 
their labor, and not more than one in some 
hundreds stick to it except through compulsion. 
It behoves us then to do all we can to make the 
way easy, and, by beginning with definition, the 
pupil might be the more readily encouraged to 
proceed farther. I am sorry to say that, 
notwithstanding all our pretended improvements, 
we have yet no work on logic that offers any 
inducement to even a sedate and settled man for 
its study. The attempts to blend the plainness 
of Bacon with the gaudiness of Aristotle, have 
considerably increased our difficulties, and the 
worst of it is, that our writers lean, I might almost 
say, invariably more to Aristotle than Bacon. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


57 


It may appear impudent, and I believe it is, 
for me to dictate to professed logicians in their 
orders or arrangements, but, as I do not offer 
my suggestions in any spirit of petulancy, I do 
not think that an apology is necessary. 

You are to note, that what I have called 
“ideas” might as well have another name, and 
I use that in deference to custom only. After 
Definition a certain preparation for reasoning is 
necessary, and indeed the old plan is intolerably 
tedious and farcically abstruse. It tends more 
to darken than to illuminate the way, and 
requires a complete change altogether. A 
valuable compendium might be compiled from 
Bacon’s initiatory instructions, but, as we have 
not that, I shall go on and observe, that the 
“ ideas” take in such a large portion of logical 
elements, and furnish such a variety of the tools 
required, that little more remains then but to go 
to work. Yet our teachers still make us proceed 
to the study of syllogisms, though that vague 
process has been justly superseded by the more 
rational and efficient operation of induction. 
The reason that they give is, that the syllogism 
cannot be dispensed with, and that it must, 
therefore, continue to be an indispensable con¬ 
stituent of logic. It is true that we all syllogise 
unavoidably. For, when we make an assertion, 
and back it by a for or because , and support it 
still further by a therefore or for which reason, 
we syllogise. As thus :— 

I know that Mr. Dee was at home this morn¬ 
ing at ten o’clock, for though his servant denied 


58 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


him, my messenger, who knows his voice well, 
heard him speaking at the time in the parlour, 
and therefore (or for which reason ) I am certain 
he was then at home. 

Now who denies that we do, and must 
syllogise, in spite of ourselves ? No one I 
believe. But we deny that it is an argument 
for making the art of reasoning to depend on 
syllogisms. Wood or iron is found to be the 
best material for doors, but is that a reason that 
we should build our houses with either one or 
the other in preference to marble, stone or 
bricks ? The syllogism may be convenient, but 
it'is not fit for the construction of a logical 
edifice. If a syllogism be true, it is nothing 
more than a truism, i. e. a thing that no one 
denies, like two and two making four, and it 
consequently neither strengthens nor weakens 
an argument, but, if it be false, it can be 
shattered to pieces by induction which admits 
of no quibbling. The old way was, if a syllo¬ 
gism were contested, to require it to be refuted 
by another, but now we attack it by induction, 
and regularly examine its materials. If opposed 
to one who argues on the syllogistic plan, we are 
not bound to produce syllogisms in reply—we 
oppose him by induction, and, if he object to 
that, we may be quite certain that he is not 
worth contending with, and we may fairly 
decline any further argumeut. No false 
syllogism can resist the inductive process of 
sifting particulars. The last one would not 
stand a moment before it, because the assertor 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


59 


gives us, in the first place, only secondary 
evidence, that of his messenger, but, supposing 
that he went himself instead, we should require 
some better proof than his own mere assertion, 
of there being no possibility of his mistaking the 
sound of Mr. Dee’s voice. Again—supposing 
that he actually saw him in the parlour, why 
then we must, in common courtesy, admit his 
assertion, but then there will be no occasion for 
the therefore , or conclusion. Indeed the very 
best constructed syllogisms are only superero¬ 
gations as to their conclusions. For any one 
can see that the conclusion is not a proof 
elicited in consequence of the propositions, as 
they already contain it in themselves, and 
therefore the civilest thing that can be said of the 
conclusion is, that it is superfluous. But, lest it 
may be thought that I am now saying too much 
from myself, I shall give a quotation from Lord 
Kaims’ Progress of Reason :— 

“ Aristotle has done hurt to the reasoning 
faculty by drawing it out of its natural course 
into devious paths. His artificial mode of 
reasoning is no less superficial than intricate. I 
say superficial; for in none of his logical works, 
is a single truth attempted to be proved by 
syllogism that requires a proof: the propositions 
he undertakes to prove by syllogism, are all of 
them self-evident. Take for instance the 
following proposition, That man has a power 
of self-motion. To prove this, he assumes the 
following axiom, upon which indeed every one 
of his syllogisms are founded, viz. That 


60 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


whatever is true of a number of particulars 
joined together, holds true of every one sepa¬ 
rately ; which is thus expressed in logical terms, 
Whatever is true of the genus, holds true of 
every species. Founding upon that axiom, he 
reasons thus : ‘ All animals have a power of 
self-motion : man is an animal : ergo , man has 
a power of self-motion ? * Now if all animals 
have a power of self-motion, it requires no 
argument to prove, that man, an animal, has that 
power : and therefore, what he gives as a con¬ 
clusion or consequence, is not really so; it *is 
not inferred from the fundamental proposition, 
but is included in it. At the same time, the 
self-motive power of man, is a fact that cannot 
be known but from experience. I add, that the 
self-motive power of man, is more clearly 
ascertained by experience than that of any other 
animal; and in attempting to prove man to be 
a self-motive animal, is it not absurd, to found 
the argument on a proposition less certain than 
that undertaken to be demonstrated ? What is 
here observed, will be found applicable to the 
bulk, if not the whole, of his syllogisms/’ 

I beg you to read this quotation attentively, 
for I confidently assure you that, whatsoever 
our Aristotle-stricken logicians may say to the 
contrary, what is there asserted cannot be easily 
overturned. Our most celebrated reasoners are 
of the same opinion, and it will be quite suffi¬ 
cient to mention the name of Locke. He held 
the syllogism, as a basis for logic, in utter con¬ 
tempt, and yet where shall we find so profound 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


(>1 


a reasoner ? His work on the Human Under¬ 
standing, though frequently assailed, is read, I 
mean only a select part of it, in all the universi¬ 
ties of Christendom, and even where Aristotelian 
logic is still taught, notwithstanding that it is an 
admirable specimen of the force of the inductive 
or Baconian process, and a powerful antidote 
against the quackery of syllogistic argument! 
But why is Locke’s work countenanced by those 
professed Bacon-haters ? That is easily an¬ 
swered—they were shamed into it, which is a 
well authenticated fact, nor are all their peripa- 
tetical skulls united even yet able to produce 
any thing equal to it for solidity. They find 
that induction resists all their artillery of syl¬ 
logisms, and their heaviest battering train of 
sophisms, and yet still they cry, with all the 
obduracy of unmeaning conservatism, “ Bar¬ 
bara, Cesare and Darepti, yea and Baralipton 
too, for ever ! Huzza ! ” These are barbarous 
words invented for the analysis of syllogistic 
figures. 

Dr. Watts, who I believe would bring in the 
bible if he were writing on algebra, finding syl¬ 
logisms in Scripture, imbibes such a veneration 
for them that one can see plainly, on reading 
his logic, that he thinks there can be no reason¬ 
ing without them ! Now that is a poor defence 
of the syllogism, for, of all books, the bible is 
that which stands the least in need of logic. We 
receive it as God’s word, and do not question 
its precepts. Logic has been indeed used, and 
properly too, to prove it of divine authority for 


02 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


the satisfaction and conviction of unbelievers, 
but, having done that, it would be irreverent to 
enforce by logic, truths that we require to be be¬ 
lieved even where they are, as for instance the 
Trinity, beyond our comprehension. 

The doctrine of syllogisms is no longer ne¬ 
cessary in studying logic, and it is quite sufficient 
to have just such a knowledge of them, as will 
enable you to understand the difference between 
the old and new systems. I would not say this, 
well knowing it to be an assertion of some con¬ 
sequence, did I not feel myself backed by men 
of ten thousand times my own judgment, and I 
will venture still further by declaring my opinion 
that, were a man as well skilled in syllogistic 
lore as Aristotle himself, he would not be the 
more advanced in what is really the art of rea¬ 
soning, i, e. a sincere desire for the enforcement 
of truth. 

After going through the ordinary rudiments, 
which are in great part drawn, as was before 
observed, from the precepts of Aristotle, the next 
step to actual working or induction is the Idols 
or Prejudices. This great improvement in logic 
belongs solely and entirely to Lord Bacon, and 
it is impossible to praise or to estimate it too 
highly. He lays down as a leading principle, 
that it is hopeless to pursue any investigation 
successfully, without first divesting ourselves of 
certain prejudices arising from the infirmities of 
human nature itself, and from our education, 
habits, company, associations, prepossessions, 
fallacy and incompetency of the senses, and nu- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 63 

merou3 other causes, extending even to our very 
constitutions. These he lays out under four 
general heads or classes, and very particularly 
details those that belong to each class—so that 
the whole together forms a complete view, to 
which nothing indeed seems wanting, of all the 
obstacles that impede accurate reasoning, and 
investigation of the sciences. Of such import¬ 
ance did he consider this scrutiny that he labors 
it with unusual precision, as if he wished to im¬ 
press, that induction, or any the best devised 
system, could avail but little unless we come to 
it with an unbiassed mind, and an understanding 
emancipated from those prejudices that impair 
the judgment. 

The world has seldom seen a finer production 
than this part of Bacon’s Organon, but it is not 
yet appreciated as it deserves. Without any 
other knowledge of the art, it would of itself 
alone make a tolerable logician, for accurate 
reasoning depends in a great measure on free¬ 
dom from prejudices. It ought to be peculiarly 
acceptable to Christians, because it teaches hu¬ 
mility and the suppression of vanity and self- 
love, though I do not remember that this view 
has been ever taken of it before. I have some¬ 
times pushed this consideration farther so as to 
think, that no pagan could have produced it, on 
account of its being so remarkably opposed to 
the notions inculcated by heathenism—but enough 
of that lest I be carried too far in rny admiration. 
One cannot, however, sufficiently laud the mag- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


64 


nanimity of Bacon in giving the Prejudices as 
an indispensable part of logic. He knew 
that it must be exceedingly unpalatable to the 
Aristotelians—he knew, he could not but know, 
that while, during his own lifetime, he could 
hardly expect half a dozen adherents, a whole 
army of opponents would presently start up, but, 
nobly disdaining any immediate fame, he man¬ 
fully resolved to write for posterity, and to illu¬ 
mine future ages. 

But you will perhaps ask, and the question 
would be by no means uureasonable, What is 
this treatise on prejudices, after all, but a good 
moral lecture, such as one might expect from 
the pulpit ? Granted that it broaches sound 
morality, it has two other distinguishing merits. 
First, it is so inseparably connected with induc¬ 
tion that, without it, we cannot proceed to rea¬ 
son inductively, and next, it is a masterly ex¬ 
amination, and a most comprehensive detail, of 
all the sources whence those prejudices spring 
that are apt to warp or mislead the judgment, 
and this task is executed with such surprising 
minuteness and fidelity that it must ever remain 
as a monument of intellectual power, such as 
none but a mighty genius could erect. I wish 
that I could induce you to think so highly of this 
part of the Baconian logic as I do myself, for, 
though enthusiastic admiration may be some¬ 
times a fault, its more general study would, be¬ 
sides inevitably conducting us into the right 
channel of reasoning, go a good way to realize 




OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


65 


all that seems practicable in Mr. Owen’s amia¬ 
ble but visionary scheme, to imbue us with more 
charitable notions towards each other. 

Lord Bacon then enters into other disquisi¬ 
tions, previous to the exposition of his grand 
plan of induction. These chiefly relate to the 
errors of former philosophers and logicians, and 
to the necessity of our pursuing a different 
method in all our inquiries. They form a va¬ 
luable mass of instructions in reasoning, but this 
short notice of them is enough here. The next 
and last step is induction, by which you really 
go to work in fact and in earnest, but that I 
have already explained sufficiently for our pre¬ 
sent purpose. 


Having thus exposed the two systems clear 
enough, as I should suppose, to show you the 
difference of both, I have written to little pur¬ 
pose if you do not now nearly understand, “ how 
the human mind was enslaved by Aristotle for 
2000 years, till Bacon set it at liberty.” Ne¬ 
vertheless, wishing to do all that I can towards 
this object, I shall throw together some other 
observations that may afford you further assist¬ 
ance. 

I shall here observe, that my description of 
the books composing Aristotle’s Organon is 
chiefly taken from Dr. Reid. He is one of the 
few who has read his author, for most of our 
writers on logic know nothing of Aristotle, ex- 



(>6 OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 

cept through the narrations and commentaries of 
others, though they talk much of his obscure 
style, just as if they had great labor in making 
out the sense! Hardly one of them reads him 
in the original Greek, nor yet even in the Latin 
translation which is much easier—they glean 
their knowledge from the explanations of our 
indefatigable ancestors, and thus appear prodi¬ 
giously knowing by a kind of second-hand 
learning. I mention this to show them, that 
they must not think that they impose on every 
one, though we must admit that their impositions 
are very extensive. Dr. Reid too makes a fair 
distinction between the philosophy and the logic 
of Aristotle, while the superficial gentlemen, to 
whom I have alluded, seem not to know how to 
separate one from the other, though they very 
magnanimously stoop to write for the logical in¬ 
struction of youth. 

DIFFERENCE, AS TO DIFFICULTY, BETWEEN 
THE OLD AND NEW SYSTEMS. 

A very general notion prevails, among those 
who have only a slight knowledge of logic, that 
the Baconian method is far easier than the Aris¬ 
totelian. It is natural to suppose this, though 
the contrary is the fact. The torturing per¬ 
plexity of syllogisms was indeed both vexatious 
and unprofitable, but, though that part is replaced 
by induction which is very easily comprehended, 
yet, on the whole, the new method is the most 
laborious. But it is necessary that you should 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


07 

understand this clearly. When I say laborious, 
I mean in point of real work. The old method 
was certainly more difficult to learn, because it 
consisted of a complicated and intricate machi¬ 
nery, which required a knack to manage, but, 
when that knack was acquired, skill and cun¬ 
ning chiefly did the rest. It did not exercise 
the depths of the understanding as induction 
does, for it only skimmed the surface. Induction 
demands considerably more mental labor, and 
besides it requires much toilsome research—a 
thing, we.might say, unknown to Aristotelian 
logic. But, if induction be more laborious, we 
are better paid for our labor, since we are almost 
certain to elicit something worth notice, whereas 
the old method offered nothing as a reward to 
the truly sensible mind. 

Aristotle’s errors. 

This great philosopher is not entitled to such 
unqualified praise as his devotees would exact. 
He made numerous important errors, but it may 
suffice to notice his astronomical ignorance. 
With his usual dogmatic presumption he insisted, 
that the sun and planets went round the earth, 
and in circular orbits, for he had peculiar notions 
about the perfection of circular motion. As he 
was the great law-giver of science, no one was 
minded who dissented from him, and this ridi¬ 
culous theory was believed for near 1800 years, 
i. e. down to the time of Copernicus. 

Here the admirers of Aristotle have no ex- 


68 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


cuse whatsoever. We do not blame him for 
not discovering the true planetary system, but 
we are justly indignant at his rejectiou of it 
when discovered. Two centuries before he 
was born, Pythagoras, who was also a Grecian 
philosopher, demonstrated the true theory, and 
what is more surprising, considering the poor 
state of instruments, or other astronomical aids 
at that early period, that the planets moved in 
eliptical orbits. Aristotle had thus the truth 
ready proved to his hand, but he was either not 
enlightened enough to comprehend it, or not 
honest enough to admit it. His defenders must 
take either horn of the dilemma, and either is 
sufficiently humiliating. 

Now what can compensate for Aristotle hav¬ 
ing thus kept mankind, for so many centuries, 
in such lamentable ignorance ? Not surely his 
Natural History, Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, or 
Poetics. No. It were better that he had never 
written a line than to have inflicted such a ter¬ 
rible injury on astronomical knowledge. 

As far as any one can pretend to judge of 
what might be, it seems a fair question, whether 
the world would not have been benefited had 
Aristotle never been born. That he was the 
propagator of this fallacious planetary scheme 
must be assumed as a fact, for I am sure that 
his warmest defenders will admit, that a word 
from him would have established the Pythago¬ 
rean system. But we need not go beyond his 
own testimony. Here are his words, “ Heavy 
bodies naturally tend to the centre of the uni- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


(59 


verse ; we know by experience that heavy 
bodies tend to the centre of the earth: therefore 
the centre of the earth is the centre of the uni¬ 
verse.” Have we not here a proof that he ad¬ 
vocated this absurd theory, and does it not at 
once clearly exhibit the science-retarding nature 
of both his philosophy and his logic ? He takes it 
for granted, without the least evidence, and con¬ 
trary to truth, that all heavy bodies tend to the 
centre of the universe, and then he proves the 
earth to be that centre by an impertinent syl¬ 
logism ! 

Had Aristotle never appeared, men might 
have wandered about considerably for want of a 
fixed plan of reasoning. But those very wan¬ 
derings, however distracting for a while, must 
give a freedom to thought that would end in 
something rational, and probably light at last on 
induction. Whatever might have been the re¬ 
sult, it is hard to imagine that they could have 
led to a more mischievous system than syllogis¬ 
tic reasoning , for that is dogmatic logic, which 
must ever be a fruitful source of error. May 
we not, at all events, suppose that the Pytha¬ 
gorean doctrine would have been adopted, which 
would alone have rescued mankind from innu¬ 
merable false notions, and have given a better 
direction generally to opinion and speculation ? 

What I have said respecting the probability 
of a better logic will not, on due consideration, 
appear to be either visionary or too fanciful, for 
it is in some measure strengthened by fact. All 
classical scholars have heard of the Socratic 

E 


70 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


Method of disputation, and, if they know it, they 
must admit that it approaches very near to in¬ 
duction. It was a mild and unpresuming mode 
of enforcing truth, by first asking a question as 
it were purely for your information. When that 
was answered, you asked another that seemed 
at variance with it, and begged your friend’s as¬ 
sistance to reconcile the difference. This brought 
on a general discussion, in which you watched 
his discrepancies, though you alluded to them 
only as if with a view to assist him. But, if he 
used a word in two different senses,you requested 
to know which he meant, to the end that you 
may neither misconceive nor misrepresent what 
he really wished to express. If you drew him 
at length into obvious contradictions, and you 
saw that he was getting angry, you seized the 
first opportunity to close the argument, on the 
plea that you had pushed it too roughly, and 
would be glad of some time to review what you 
had said. The consequence of this conciliating 
procedure was, that, if you really had truth at 
your side, the next time you met your friend, 
you had generally the satisfaction of hearing him 
admit that he believed you were right. 

This method of argument might be consider¬ 
ably varied, so as to avoid the suspicion of any 
fixed or settled plan, but its general feature was 
conciliation and suavity. Now as its founder, 
Socrates, lived before Aristotle, it might have 
prevailed, and have been shaped into a regular 
system of logic, were it not for Aristotle. For 
when his glittering scheme came out, as men are 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


71 


always taken with show and pageantry, the un¬ 
ostentatious process of Socrates appeared too 
simple, and it presently fell before that which 
promised victory to both sides. An irreparable 
injury was thus done to logic, and consequently 
to the whole course of the sciences, since logic 
is admitted to be necessary for studying the 
sciences. 

I must here observe that, at Aristotle’s death, 
his writings were lost, and not recovered till 
about two centuries after, because much is said 
concerning that circumstauce. It is alleged that, 
during this long period, the world was free to 
adopt any other system, but that is not true. 
Greece, though so small a spot, was then the 
world with reference to learning or science, and 
both the logic and philosophy of Aristotle were 
in effect preserved, through his pupils, by tra¬ 
dition. The spirit of them certainly remained, 
and kept down any other attempt at improve¬ 
ment, because they suited the Greeks, who were 
of a lively, airy turn, and delighted in showing 
their skill in extempore disputation. This made 
his logic particularly acceptable, and though it 
was not so complete as when his works were 
recovered, enough of it was remembered to 
cause the rejection of any other. We may, 
therefore, fairly ascribe to him all those evils 
to science and reasoning which are so much 
deplored. There is no exaggeration in the 
round numbers of 2,000 years, that are ge¬ 
nerally ascribed to his dominion over the human 
mind, down to Bacon. He was teaching his 


72 OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 

logic long before he published it, and, when 
Bacon’s system appeared, his reign was within 
a trifle of 2,000 years. But we may reckon it 
as exceeding that, because, unfortunately for the 
world, Bacon had little influence till a long time 
after his death, especially in England. To her 
great shame, it was on the continent that his 
merit was first appreciated. 

A curious defence of Aristotle, which I forgot 
when noticing his book on Sophisms, is, that he 
did not invent sophistry, as there were, before 
his time, several philosophers called Sophists, 
who prided themselves on putting down an op¬ 
ponent whether right or wrong. But what did 
Aristotle ? Did he, like Socrates, oppose those 
shameless bafflers of truth ? No, but on the 
contrary he materially aided them by his book 
on sophisms, which was, to all intents and pur¬ 
poses, a manual for their greater convenience. 
Sophistry was, originally, only irony to annoy 
the petty philosophers who then pestered Greece, 
but, when Aristotle gave it a place in his logic, 
the sophists saw its value , and used it to attack 
both truth and falsehood. 

Here is another instance to show that Aris¬ 
totle was not a witch, as the vulgar say, nor yet 
a sorcerer. It is taken from Lord Kaims, and 
I shall give it without a word of observation :— 

“ Many reasonings have passed current in the 
world, where premises and conclusion are both 
of them false. Aristotle, who wrote a book 
upon mechanics, was much puzzled about the 
equilibrium of a balance, when unequal weights 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


73 


are hung upon it at different distances from the 
centre. Having observed, that the arms of the 
balance described portions of a circle, he ac¬ 
counted for the equilibrium by a notable argu¬ 
ment. ‘ All the properties of the circle are 
wonderful: the equilibrium of the two weights 
that describe portions of a circle is wonderful. 
Ergo, the equilibrium must be one the properties 
of the circle/ What are we to think of Aris¬ 
totle’s logics, when we find him capable of such 
childish reasoning ? And yet that work has been 
the admiration of the world for centuries upon 
centuries. Nay, that foolish argument has been 
espoused and commented upon by his disciples, 
for the same length of time.” 

You have had already a specimen of Aristo¬ 
tle’s sapiency in defining “ motion,” and which 
if followed up would reduce Definition, as indeed 
it did, to a mere child’s play about absurd at¬ 
tempts at useless distinctions. I shall now give 
you another instance of this, as noticed by the 
preceding author:— 

“ Can anything be more self-evident than the 
difference between pleasure and motion? Yet 
Aristotle attempts to demonstrate , that they are 
different. 6 No motion,’ says he, ‘ except circular 
motion, is perfect in any one point of time: there 
is always something wanting during its course, 
and it is not perfected till it arrive at its end. But 
pleasure is perfect in every point of time ; being 
the same from the beginning to the end.’ The 
difference is clear from perception merely; but 
is far from being clear from this demonstration.” 

E 2 



74 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


Besides the puerility of this demonstration, 
cannot we perceive somethinglike an insinuation, 
if his meaning can be at all divined, that motion 
is necessary to pleasure ? Certainly, on a pro¬ 
found examination, I believe that they will be 
generally found inseparable, but not always 
so however. A man heartily tired with hard 
marching feels pleasure, and great pleasure too, 
in sitting immoveable on a comfortable seat— 
insomuch that he experiences an interruption of 
that pleasure, if obliged to stoop for his handker¬ 
chief, should he drop it accidentally. 

These instances show that this great philoso¬ 
pher, and great he undoubtedly was, cannot justly 
be deemed that paragon of wisdom which his ad¬ 
mirers work themselves up to believe, for they 
might be yet multiplied, though I shall add only 
what Dr. Reid says :— 

“ In the ancient philosophy there is a redun¬ 
dance, rather than a defect, of first principles. 
Many things were assumed under that charac¬ 
ter without a just title: That nature abhors a 
vacuum; That bodies do not gravitate in their 
proper place; That the heavenly bodies undergo 
no change; That they move in perfect circles, 
and with an equable motion. Such principles as 
these were assumed in the Peripatetic philosophy, 
without proof, as if they were self-evident.” 

You see by the word “ peripatetic” that Dr. 
Reid, who will shortly assist us much, imputes 
those errors to Aristotle, arid it was only in 
mercy to him that he spared a more formidable 
exhibition. 



OLD ANr> NEW LOGIC. 


75 


The mind cannot contemplate, without excited 
feelings, the loss that astronomy alone has sus¬ 
tained by Aristotle. Copernicus published his 
work De Revol. Orb. in 1500, which was only 
a revival of the Pythagorean doctrine, and, not¬ 
withstanding that several eminent men were suc¬ 
cessively clearing the way for Newton by im¬ 
portant discoveries, the Principia did not appear 
till almost two hundred years afterwards. Since 
that time the bare names of distinguished labor- 
ers, who have been hard at work at the study, 
would fill a volume, and yet we know that much 
still remains to be done. We certainly can 
show a good deal, but we must not forget that 
it is the labor of near 350 years, and the great¬ 
est part of those aided throughout Europe by 
royal encouragement, and all assisted by the 
powerful arm of printing. The erroneous sys¬ 
tem of Aristotle prevailed for 1800 years, and, 
if he had sanctioned Pythagoras, in what a state 
must not astronomy have been down to Coperni¬ 
cus ! Allowing double the time for the progress of 
science before printing, there would have been 
900 years of comparative experience, instead of 
which the whole 1800 were, in a great measure, 
lost to astronomy by Aristotle’s absurd immove- 
ability of the earth. 

To Aristotle may also be attributed the in¬ 
numerable sects of pitiable philosophers with 
which the world so long abounded, and who 
seemed to vie with each other in exuberance of 
folly, as to instance the Sceptics. It is true that 


76 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


they first appeared rather before Aristotle, but it 
was certainly his logic that caused the spread of 
their tenets. Seeing the impossibility of coming 
at truth by his system, and being unable to over¬ 
throw it by a better, some men began to suspect 
that there was no such thing at all as truth, or, that 
if there were, nature would not or could not re¬ 
veal it to human understanding. Accordingly 
the Academics professed to know nothing, and 
spent their lives in asking questions of others, 
in order to discover if any one else knew any 
thing. But the Pyrrhonists reproached them 
with being only a kind of mongrel doubters, in¬ 
asmuch as they admitted that they knew nothing, 
which was acknowledging that they knew some¬ 
thing, whereas they, the Pyrrhonists, doubted 
whether they doubted that they knew nothing. 
Were not these fine pranks for the philosophi¬ 
cal world to be playing ? And yet Des Cartes, 
a French thinker who died so late as 1650, had 
a strong tincture of this frivolity. He spent 
some years in fruitless endeavours to discover 
something of which he could be certain, and at 
length, after a patient hatching, the shell 
of his understanding opened, and happily brought 
forth a panacea for his douhts in the shape of his 
own existence. But I will let Lord Kaims 
describe this wonderful phenomenon, and particu¬ 
larly because he treats Des Cartes with the 
highest respect. 

“ He [Des Cartes] was the greatest geometer 
of the age he lived in, and one of the greatest of 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


77 


any age; which insensibly led him to overlook 
intuitive knowledge, and to admit no proposition 
but what is demonstrated or proved in the regu¬ 
lar form of syllogism. He took a fancy to 
doubt even of his own existence, till he was con¬ 
vinced of it by the following argument, Cogito , 
ergo sum [he wrote, according to the then custom 
of the learned, in Latin]: 1 think , therefore I 
exist . And what sort of a demonstration is this 
after all ? In the very fundamental proposition 
he acknowledges his existence by the term I; 
and how absurd is it, to imagine a proof neces¬ 
sary of what is admitted to be true in the funda¬ 
mental proposition ? In the next place, How 
does our author know that he thinks? If 
nothing is to be taken for granted, an argument 
is no less necessary to prove that he thinks, than 
to prove that he exists. It is true, that he has 
intuitive knowledge of his thinking ; but has he 
not the same of his existing ? Would not a 
man deserve to be laughed at, who, after warm¬ 
ing himself at a fire, should imagine the following 
argument necessary to prove its existence, 
‘ The fire burns, ergo it exists ?’ ” 

As his lordship’s forcible reasoning cannot be 
strengthened by anything that I could say, 1 
shall content myself with directing your attention 
to the beginning, where he alludes to syllogistic 
argument, and where you have a melancholy proof 
of its workings. When we see the intelligent 
mind of a Des Cartes absolutely hoodwinked, 
and hugging itself in comfortable deception, we re¬ 
cognise the danger of following Aristotle. He 


78 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


resolutely opposed his philosophy, but he unfor¬ 
tunately followed his logic, and the usual conse¬ 
quence ensued, that he reasoned unsoundly. 

This logic, backed by an an equally fallacious 
philosophy, operated as a drag-chain on almost 
every study, and its influence penetrated where 
one might suppose that it could not be felt. 
V ou will probably be surprised to learn that 
chemistry, which seems more like an art than a 
science, suffered in a greater proportion by it 
than perhaps any thing else, and yet this can be 
as well proved as any historical fact. Accus¬ 
tomed, in reasoning, to explore first causes 
rather than effects, the old chemists pursued the 
same injudicious routine, and spent their time in 
such fanciful pursuits that they commonly ended 
in being alchymists, or persons who believed it 
possible to transmute the baser metals into gold 
—in popular language, to find the philosopher’s 
stone. If, in the course of their experiments, 
they made any useful discovery, it was generally 
owing to chance, for nothing but an inductive 
process will lead to discovery by judgmeut in 
chemistry. Even the illustrious Roger Bacon, 
who is reputed to have possessed more general 
knowledge than ever fell, in either ancient or 
modern times, to the lot of any single individual, 
degraded his mighty genius by alchymical expe¬ 
riments, though a common tinker would now be 
ashamed to own that he believed in the art of 
gold-making. 

In short this subtle logic affected the whole 
range of science, by leading men at once into 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC, 


79 


airy speculations beyond human capacity, and 
teaching them to despise the laborious and re¬ 
gular approaches of induction, by which only we 
can distinguish attainable from unattainable 
knowledge. To what else can we attribute the 
great extension of astrology, or the art of fore¬ 
telling events by the stars ? Men of the finest 
intellect spent their lives in this ridiculous study, 
deceiving alike themselves and others, and, even 
now, the large sales of predicting almanacs 
would show, that there are still many ranking 
above the vulgar who believe in this trickery. 

I cannot help thinking too, that Christianity 
suffered not a little by Aristotle. We know what 
turmoil and vexation the early Fathers expe¬ 
rienced from the various heresies that were con¬ 
stantly springing up, and how ineffectual their 
pious labours were, in many instances, to stem 
the progress of error. But we need not wonder 
at these occasional failures. The leaders of 
those sects were men who had all the learning 
of the times, and of course they argued through 
all the wiles of syllogistic logic. The fathers 
were obliged to meet them with the same wea¬ 
pon, for, if they did not, they would, in those 
days, seem unable to contend, and, as it was 
specially contrived for endless disputation, a 
practised opponent might appear not to be van¬ 
quished, even when truth and reason were mani¬ 
festly against him. Some of those heretics 
broached doctrines that could not stand a mo¬ 
ment before rational logic, but the sort then 
in use could give plausibility to the most absurd 


80 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


tenets—even to atheism itself. Accordingly 
all those leaders found adherents, no matter how 
contrary to Scripture their precepts were, and 
the true church of Christ, notwithstanding the 
vigilance of her pastors, was scandalised and 
hurt by men who would have been impotent but 
for Aristotle’s logic. 

If I should seem, in some of my observations, 
to bear rather hard on Aristotle, recollect that 
my object is to arm you so as not to be bam¬ 
boozled by the extravagancies of his defenders. 
Of all enthusiasts, they may be ranked amongst 
the most incorrigible. Nothing will satisfy them 
but the absolute perfection of their idol, for, in 
this, they are as determined as a Turk is to hear 
nothing against Mahomet, and every one who 
will not join in their adoration is reproached by 
them as an ignoramus, or an infidel in reason. 
No one can speak of any imperfection in this 
god of their idolatry, without a certainty of being 
assailed. Volumes have been written against 
Locke for his strictures on the syllogism, and 
there is not a line of my quotations from Lord 
Kaims but what has been fiercely attacked. 
Even his remarks on the famous definition of 
“motion” have been bitterly impugned, though 
he happens not to be the first who noticed this 
imbecile attempt, for Locke was before him on 
that very point, and I have now lying beside me 
an old work on logic, without any author’s name, 
printed before his lordship was born, wherein it 
is reprobated in much stronger language. But 
those outrageous fanatics are rather shy of Dr. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


81 


Reid, because he was a great admirer of Aris¬ 
totle, and looked on him as a first-rate genius. 
He considers his structure of logic, taken alto¬ 
gether, as the most stupendous fabric ever de 
signed and completed by the labor of one man, 
and yet, with all this admiration, he was too im¬ 
partial to overlook his defects. It was at the 
pressing solicitations of Lord Kaimsthathe wrote 
the account of Aristotle’s Organon, and he ap¬ 
pears to have undertaken it with reluctance— 
probably because he foresaw that he would be 
compelled, as a man of truth, to speak unfavora¬ 
bly of a philosopher whose vast genius he so 
highly respected. Now then see what he says :— 

h “ If his [Aristotle’s] talents had been laid 
out solely for the discovery of truth, and the good 
of mankind, his laurels would have remained for 
ever fresh : but he seems to have had a greater 
passion for fame than for truth, and to have 
wanted rather to be admired as the prince of 
philosophers, than to be useful: so that it is 
dubious whether there be in his character most of 
the philosopher, or of the sophist.” 

What do you think of that ? But we go on :— 

2. “ His writings carry too evident marks, of 
that philosophical pride, vanity, and envy, which 
have often sullied the character of the learned.” 
Observe this picture of his honesty as a writer :— 

3. “ His conduct towards the writers that 

went before him has been much censured ”- 

u He rarely quotes an author but with a view to 
censure, and is not very fair in representing the 
opinions which he censures. The faults we have 

F 


82 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


mentioned are such as might be expected in a 
man, who had the daring ambition to be trans - 
mitted to all future ages, as the prince of philo¬ 
sophers, as one who had carried every branch of 
human knowledge to its utmost limit ; and who 
was not very scrupulous about the means he took 
to obtain his end." 

Note particularly the last sentence, which I 
have put in italics, as a sketch of Aristotle’s cha¬ 
racter. Speaking of his Definitions, he says :— 

4. “ The principles laid down by Locke with 
regard to definition, and with regard to the abuse 
of words, carry conviction along with them ”— 
“ If Aristotle had understood those principles, 
many of his definitions, which furnish matter 
of triumph to his enemies, had never seen the 
light: let us impute them to the times rather than 
to the man.” 

And so we will. But does not this show that 
Aristotle was at least fallible, though every petty 
whipster will abuse a Kaims, or any one else, 
who exposes the absurdity of his definitions ? 
Now as to syllogisms, which are the prop and 
stay of his entire system, and which his mis¬ 
guided friends defend with a zeal bordering on 
ferocity, hear what Dr. Reid says:— 

5. “ The whole theory of syllogisms he claims 
as his own, and as the fruit of much time and 
labor. And indeed it is a stately fabric, a monu¬ 
ment of a great genius, which we could wish to 
have been more usefully employed.” 

There ! What do you think of that ? Is it 
not a very strong opinion as to the utility of 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


83 


syllogisms ? But we will continue our extracts. 
Treating of the second book of First Analytics, 
he says :— 

6. “ We have likewise precepts given in this 
book, both to the assailant in a syllogistical dis¬ 
pute, how to carry on his attack with art, so as 
to obtain the victory ; and to the defendant how 
to keep the enemy at such a distance as that he 
shall never be obliged to yield.” 

Now after this undisguised exposition, and by 
one who admired Aristotle, of the dishonest ten¬ 
dency of syllogistic art, are we to throw away a 
Locke, a Kaims, or a Reid, and to surrender 
our reason and judgment into the hands of men 
who write logical treatises for colleges ? No, 
surely not. Let them weary hapless youths with 
syllogistic learning , and sneer at induction, but 
I hope that you will not be one of their dupes, 
nor suffer yourself to be “ frighted out of your 
propriety ” by such bugbear declaimers. Again, 
see what our author says, when specially treating 
of the syllogistic theory, “ considered as an En¬ 
gine of Science” :— 

7. “ The slow progress of useful knowledge, 
during the many ages in which the syllogistic 
art was most highly cultivated as the only guide 
to science, and its quick progress since that art 
was disused, suggest a presumption against it ; 
and this presumption is strengthened by the puer¬ 
ility of the examples which have always been 
brought to illustrate its rules.” 

He goes on—and I pray you to read what 
follows, with marked attention :— 


84 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


8. u The ancients seem to have had too high 
notions of the force of the reasoning power in 
man, and of the art of syllogism as its guide. 
Mere reasoning can carry us but a very little way 
in most subjects. By observation , and experi¬ 
ments properly conducted , the stock of human 
knowledge may be enlarged without end ; but the 
power of reasoning alone, supplied with vigor 
through a long life, would only carry a man 
round, like a horse in a mill, who labors hard, 
but makes no progress/’ 

Observe particularly the part that I hare put 
in italics. That alludes to induction, and you 
may there estimate its value in comparison to 
syllogising. You see that our author by no 
means denies the necessity of a regular system 
of reasoning, but he maintains in substance that, 
as it will carry us only a part of the way, we 
must bring it finally to bear on induction if we 
look for any result. The whole paragraph forms 
indeed an admirable epitome of what profitable 
logic is, and you would do well to treasure it up 
in your memory. 

Inaccuracy of method is a serious defect in 
any system of logic. Yet Dr- Reid shows, by a 
very remarkable fact, that Aristotle, who is held 
up as faultless by his worshippers, failed in this 
important particular:— 

9. “ In his enumeration of Topics, Aristotle 
has shown more the fertility of his genius, than 
the accuracy of method. The writers of logic 
seem to be of this opinion : for I know none of 
them that has followed him closely upon this 
subject.” 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


85 


1 am almost tired of extracts, for I am very 
slow in copying, and would rather write a page 
“ out of my own head” than transcribe half a 
dozen lines. Yet I cannot forbear quoting the 
following. I gave part of it before in my Sketch 
of Aristotle’s logic, but I will not now refer you 
back as it is so very short:— 

10. (i The last book of the topics is a code of 
the laws, according to w r bich a syllogistical dis¬ 
putation ought to be managed, both on the part 
of the assailant and defendant. From which it 
is evident, that this philosopher trained his disci¬ 
ples to contend, not for the truth merely, but for 
victory.” 

Any one who reads this with an unpre¬ 
judiced mind must, I think, turn away in 
disgust from such an insidious logic, if he be 
above treachery and craft, and have not a lurk¬ 
ing or “ sneaking regard” more for unprincipled 
triumph than conviction or truth. 

Those extracts are extremely valuable—com¬ 
ing from one who had so high an opinion of 
Aristotle. Whatever may be said of Locke, 
Kaims, Campbell, Stewart, or others, Dr. Reid 
cannot at least be classed amongst his “ene¬ 
mies.” They will, therefore, always supply 
you with answers to his friends , because they 
know that the doctor well understood both his 
author and his subject. His “ Essays on the 
active Powers of Man” furnish a proof, that he 
had a great turn for logical disquisitions, and that 
he reasoned soundly. It would be difficult in¬ 
deed to find any one better fitted for the task that 


86 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


he undertook, and it would require a good deal of 
sophistry to contradict Lord Kaims’ assertion, 
“ No man is better acquainted with Aristotle’s 
writings; and without any enthusiastic attach¬ 
ment, he holds that philosopher to be a first-rate 
genius.” 

You cannot imagine how proud I am of this 
chapter. I began it merely with a view to pre¬ 
vent you from being gulled by the specious re¬ 
presentations of Aristotle’s perfection, but I now 
see that it is a powerful aid to my grand object 
—that of enabling you to comprehend, how a the 
human mind was kept enslaved for 2000 years, 
till Bacon broke the fetters that Aristotle had im¬ 
posed on it.” I flatter myself that you have 
now a clear conception of what once puzzled 
you so much. If you have not, I fear that I 
must despair of being able to make you under¬ 
stand it, for I do think that, were I now to stop, 
you ought, by attentively reading what I have 
written, to be completely in possession of what 
is meant by that figurative expression, respect¬ 
ing the long imprisonment of the human facul¬ 
ties. 

I will not leave you yet however. It shall 
not be my fault if you complain of wanting as¬ 
sistance, and I shall therefore now give, as an 
Appendix, a variety of considerations, just as 
they occur, without any regard to regular order. 
You will find, however, that they all bear on the 
point that I have undertaken to explain, and I 
consequently recommend them for your attentive 
perusal. Do not pass any of them, for, though 




OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


87 


some may seem to have little connexion with 
our main subject, you will find that they throw 
light on it, and every help is necessary towards 
arriving at its comprehension. With very slen¬ 
der abilities I have engaged in a very difficult 
undertaking, and it is not unreasonable that, 
before you pronounce me to have failed, I should 
expect you to read every word of this book 
that I have written. 





















♦ 

















• \ 














ft 

























APPENDIX. 


ARISTOTLE’S LIFE. 

On this I should not say a word, were it not 
of some consequence in one point of view. 
Would you believe that the peripatetics are 
as testy here as on his writings ? Determined 
to hold up their idol as immaculate, they 
brand all, both ancients and modems, as 
calumniators, who do not admit its spotless pu¬ 
rity in every respect. The case stands thus. 
Aristotle’s private life, according to the various 
historians, is liable to suspicion as to honorable 
or disinterested conduct, and they wax exceed¬ 
ing wroth at the slightest imputation tending to 
bring his complete perfection in question. They 
represent him as surrounded, from the earliest 
to the present time, by enemies—their common 
name for all who do not join in their own ful¬ 
some adulation, and they write whole books to 
prove that his historians were either open de- 
famers, or were misled by false reports ! Now 
it matters little to us, who are only investigating 
his logic, whether he were a good or a bad 
man, but is it not curious that he, who had al¬ 
ways so many admirers, should not find a single 
historian of antiquity to do him common justice, 
according to their assertions ? The thing is 



90 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


really not worth our consideration. I grant 
that, when reading an able author, it is more 
pleasing to know that he was a virtuous man, 
but we must not carry this too far, else we may 
scruple to hear a sermon without first ascertain¬ 
ing whether the preacher’s life correspond with 
his precepts. 

But beware ! You have artful gentlemen to 
deal with. This rage for making Aristotle' an 
angel was most observable when the Novum Or¬ 
ganon began to attract considerable notice, and 
it has continued ever since unabated. It serves 
to prejudice the weak-minded against that noble 
work, by contrasting its author with Aristotle. 
Lord Bacon’s character is unfortunately beyond 
defence, and the insinuation thrown out is, that 
nothing good could be expected from such a pol¬ 
luted source, whereas the unsullied purity of 
Aristotle ought to recommend his logic. You per¬ 
ceive now, that this bepraising of Aristotle’s life 
answers an important object, but I should hope 
that you will not be swayed by such a miser- 
ble ruse de guerre. Bacon’s Novum Organon 
is the most precious gift that was ever presented 
to science, and, were its author covered from 
head to foot with crimes, it would not be the 
less valuable. He is, however, immeasurably 
above the Stagyrite in this respect—that he de¬ 
livers his inestimable precepts with all the mo¬ 
desty of a pupil at an examination before his 
masters, while “pride, vanity, and envy” are 
distinguishing characteristics of the other, as you 
may see in my extract No. 2 from Dr. Reid. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


91 


All the faults of style and grammar—all the 
appearances of pride, vanity or envy—all un¬ 
sound reasonings, inconsistencies or deviations 
from truth—all wilful omissions, misquotations, 
or injurious suppressions—all indications of vi¬ 
cious morality or corrupt views, and, in short, 
all the defects that we can discover in a man’s 
writings, are legitimate objects of censure and 
criticism. Dr. Reid, who strives assiduously to 
be impartial towards Aristotle, cannot forbear 
mentioning the blemishes discernible in him as 
an author , while he says not a word to the dis¬ 
paragement of Bacon, where he had scope 
enough if he looked to his life. But he was too 
high-minded, or rather he had too much rectitude, 
to shelter Aristotle by any allusion to Bacon’s 
frailties. 

Let us then leave those pious enthusiasts in 
quiet possession of their stainless philosopher, 
without offering a word of contradiction on the 
innocency of his character as a man. They 
may, if they please, put him among the gods, 
and I believe, indeed, that they would have done 
that long ago, were it not rather a hasardous 
proceeding without Greek or Roman authority. 

ARISTOTLE’S « OBSCURITY.” 

As a great deal is constantly said about this, 
it is right that you should not be entirely unac¬ 
quainted with a matter of so much interest to 

logicians. 

o 


92 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


It is generally admitted, that Aristotle wrote 
liis Organon with such studied brevity as to ren¬ 
der it very difficult, in many instances, to make 
out the sense of what he means. This is ex¬ 
ceedingly perplexing. In addition to that, while 
he is prodigal of rules, he is so miserly of ex¬ 
amples that almost every part of his work is a 
painful study to understand. Even when on 
his great favorite, the syllogism, he is not more 
explicit. Instead of an example, he uses the 
letters of the alphabet, A, B, C, for the terms 
of a syllogism, and then goes on in' this manner, 
“ If A is attributed to every B, and B to every 
C, it follows necessarily that A may be attri¬ 
buted to every C.” You may easily conceive, 
that it must be very troublesome to compose a 
real syllogism from such a description, and in 
fact, were it not for the unwearied labors of suc¬ 
cessive writers, who have illustrated his meager 
rules by examples, little now would be known 
of this famous Organon. Patricius has com¬ 
puted that, down to the close of the 16th century, 
full 12,000 commentaries, and not a few of 
them very bulky, have been written on it and 
his other works, and we have now real examples 
of all the rules, which are a great help to the 
proper understanding of them. Yet Dr. Reid, 
in noticing those of syllogisms, says that, though 
the object was charitable to assist the imagina¬ 
tion in the conception of matters so very abstract, 
he doubts if it were prudent, for the honor of 
the art, as he is afraid that those examples have 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


93 


only served “ to uncover the nakedness of the 
theory.” No great compliment this to either 
the syllogistic system or its commentators. 

Dr. Reid, who read his author’s text, and did 
not, like others, depend on commentaries or 
paraphrases, acknowledges the difficulty of com¬ 
prehending his obscure mode of writing. Speak¬ 
ing of his demonstrations on the Conversion of 
Propositions, a branch of the syllogistic theory, 
he says:— 

“1 shall give his demonstration of the first 
rule. ‘ Let A B be an universal negative pro¬ 
position ; I say, that if A is in no B, it will fol¬ 
low that B is in no A. If you deny this conse¬ 
quence, let B be in some A, for example in C ; 
then the first supposition will not be true ; for C 
is of the B’s.’ In this demonstration, if I under¬ 
stand it, the third rule of conversion is assumed 
that if B is in some A, &c.” 

This will suffice to give you some idea, which 
is all that you now require, of this so much 
talked of obscurity. Hear now the causes as¬ 
signed. That which appears to have most 
weight is, that, as Aristotle lived chiefly by pri¬ 
vate or public teaching, he wrote his Organon 
purposely obscure, so as not to be comprehended 
except through his own instructions. This is 
confirmed by Plutarch, who gives a letter from 
Alexander to him, and his answer. Alexander 
complains of his having published what he taught 
him as secrets, and he replies that “ they are 
published and not published,” since they can be 
understood by no one without his aid. The 


94 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


allusion here was to his Metaphysics and Organ- 
non, which were written in the acroatic or ob¬ 
scure style, as distinguished from his other works 
as those on ethics, rhetoric, politics, natural his¬ 
tory, which were in the exoteric , i. e. plain and 
intelligible language. 

Now this is the “head and front” of Aris¬ 
totle’s offending, for which he has been severely 
abused. Yet I, who am no very ardent admirer 
of any thing but his great genius, must here step 
in to give him my feeble assistance. Supposing 
all this to be true, though it may not be noble 
or disinterested, still there is nothing in it of 
baseness or criminality. What is it more than 
schoolmasters have been always, and are still, 
doing ? They write books of instructions for 
their pupils, w r hich are no use whatsoever to 
them, unless aided by their own additional in¬ 
structions. To confine ourselves strictly to our 
subject, is there any one of our very numerous 
works on logic, written expressly for young men 
in college, that they can understand without 
their tutor’s aid ? They can answer that best, 
and I think that I may safely anticipate a uni¬ 
versal No. Let us, therefore, at least be just, 
and not make that criminal in Aristotle which, 
as we well know, is done by men who have no 
sinister or unworthy intentions. 

But this obscurity is lamented by his defend¬ 
ers as a great calamity, inasmuch as it has pro¬ 
duced interpretations of his system quite con¬ 
trary to his meaning. This is poor logic. Why 
do not they, since they seem to know his inmost 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


95 


mind, furnish us with an unclouded view, and not 
keep those valuable explanations churlishly to 
themselves ? God knows we have waited long 
enough. They cannot reasonably complain of 
our impatience, if we now abandon all hope, 
after having given them the advantage of above 
2000 years’ consideration. But the fact is, and 
how could it be otherwise after such an amazing 
combination of literary exertions ? that the 
Organon has been fairly laid open, and the re¬ 
sult has been to “ uncover the nakedness” of the 
syllogistic theory as an engine either for sound 
reasoning, or for the development of truth. 

ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN INDUCTION 
BY EXAMPLE. 

Induction being now of the first importance 
in reasoning, I must give you whatever informa¬ 
tion is in my power, and here I have to regret 
that it is very scanty. Descriptions may an¬ 
swer for buildings, mechanical contrivances, 
steam-engines, or works of art generally, or even 
such sciences as astronomy and music. Their 
illustration can be rendered complete by the as¬ 
sistance of engraving, but any intellectual pro¬ 
cess is very different, and it cannot be under¬ 
stood, unless by very painful study, if examples 
be not furnished. 

Now here it is that we are miserably deficient. 
If Aristotle was niggardly of examples, Bacon 
is still worse, for it may be said that he gives 
none. Innumerable commentators have, how- 


DO 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


ever, remedied Aristotle’s neglect, but no one 
lias as yet illustrated Bacon ! On this I may 
have to remark hereafter, and I shall now only 
observe, that, not having brains enough myself 
to supply an example of induction, I have hunted 
a long time and can only find one that I could 
venture to offer. When I say this, I mean 
that I could find only one sufficiently concise 
for our purpose, for there are many splendid 
examples of induction extant, as for instance 
Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, 
which is, from beginning to end, an inductive 
process of reasoning. But then, for such exam¬ 
ples as these, you would have to read a very 
bulky volume through, and that could not be 
called illustrating induction—it would be almost 
as disingenuous as Aristotle’s occult mode, who 
set his readers hard at work, in the first instance, 
to find out what he meant ! 

The example I am going to give is Sir Hum¬ 
phrey Davy’s discovery of the safety lamp. You 
must know then, that, before its invention, the 
workers in coal-mines were in constant danger of 
an explosion of what is called fire-damp. This 
is a gas that will sometimes issue imperceptibly 
from a vein, and, when a certain quantity mixes 
with the common air, it then becomes ignitible 
by flame only. To remedy this danger, as the 
miners must have light in those subterraneous 
recesses, various kinds of lamps were devised, 
but none of them afforded any protection that 
could be relied on as a security. Some used 
“ steel mills ” or wheels which, when kept rapidly 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


97 


whirling round, and striking against numerous 
flints in their revolutions, elicited such myriads 
of sparks as gave the miners in their vicinity suf¬ 
ficient light for working. They were, no doubt, 
a perfect security, but we may easily judge that 
they must, if only from their bulk, be exceedingly 
inconvenient in such a place as a mine—so trou¬ 
blesome, indeed, that the workmen generally pre¬ 
ferred the lamps with all their awful danger. A 
lamp being then the only thing that stood a chance 
of general use, on account of its convenient porta¬ 
bility, Sir Humphrey Davy applied himself to the 
construction of one which should secure its flame 
from any contact with the fire-damp. We can 
hardly imagine any discovery of greater import¬ 
ance. You have often read of explosions which 
suddenly buried numbers of human beings alive, 
and sometimes rendered a mine useless, after a 
prodigious expenditure of money and labor. 


Sir H. commenced his investigation by a par¬ 
ticular examination of fire-damp, so far as its 
commixture with atmospheric air was concerned. 
This was a rational and regular procedure, be¬ 
cause it was absolutely necessary as a step to 
his further progress. I shall not enter into the 
detail, as my object is only to show his mode of 
proceeding, and it must suffice to say that he as¬ 
certained, by a great number of trials, the va¬ 
rious proportions of common air requisite for 
slight or powerful explosions, and also when 
none could take place. Having satisfied him- 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


98' 

self minutely on that head, he set about ascer¬ 
taining the temperature required for causing an 
explosion. He found “ that the strongest ex¬ 
plosive mixture may come in contact with iron, 
or other solid bodies, heated to redness, or even 
to whiteness, without detonating, provided they 
are not in a state of actual combustion ; whereas 
the smallest point of flame, owing to its higher 
temperature, instantly causes an explosion.” 

In this manner he went on steadily investi¬ 
gating, and patiently testing, every thing neces¬ 
sary for his great object. It might be interesting 
to follow him through all his various experi¬ 
ments and persevering researches, but our pur¬ 
pose does not require such particulars, and it 
will be sufficient to observe that, after having 
carefully examined, in every possible way, what¬ 
ever appeared indispensable for preparative 
measures, he then, and not till then, pro¬ 
ceeded to his ultimate aim. This was, as has 
been before remarked, to prevent the flame of a 
lamp from coming in contact with fire-damp. 

Sir H. having thus cleared away every ima¬ 
ginable obstacle, proceeded to his grand and final 
experiment. Many and various were the trials 
that he made, but they at length led to the im¬ 
portant discovery, that flame cannot pass through 
a narrow tube. He next discovered “ that the 
power of tubes in preventing the transmission of 
flame is not necessarily connected with any par¬ 
ticular length ; and that a very short one will 
have the effect, provided its diameter is propor- 
tionably reduced.’ ' He had now the satisfaction 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


99 

of seeing that he had attained his grand object, 
but there still remained something td be done. 
To surround a lamp with a covering of small 
tubes would, from the nature of such workman¬ 
ship, be exceedingly expensive, and, what must 
be even a greater objection, it would hide the 
light so as to render the lamp almost useless. 
Following up his inquiries, therefore, he found 
that fine w T ire gauze was, in fact, an assemblage 
of-short naiTOw tubes, and “ consequently if a 
common oil-lamp be completely surrounded with 
a cage of such gauze, it may be introduced into 
an explosive atmosphere of fire-damp and air, 
without kindling the mixture.” Thus was that 
invaluable acquisition, the safety-lamp, com¬ 
pleted by a purely inductive process of inquiry 
and experiment. 

It now only remains to be observed that, 
when the mixture is highly explosive, “ it takes 
fire as soon as it has passed through the gauze, 
and burns on its inner surface, while the light 
in the centre of the lamp is extinguished.” But 
Sir H. previously ascertained all that, and he 
furnished such directions as enable the miners 
to know, by the appearance of the lamp, when 
there is any danger, and they can make their 
escape in perfect safety. The mine is then ven¬ 
tilated, and no explosion can ever occur if they 
observe only common attention. 

For the satisfaction of those who are entirely 
unacquainted with this lamp, I shall also ob¬ 
serve that the reason why the mixt air that gets 
through the gauze does not explode is, because, 


100 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


in the passage, its temperature is so lowered or 
cooled, that it is not ignitible, except in the ex¬ 
treme case explained in the preceding paragraph. 
I may also mention that, as every one knows 
by a candle, flame being much more powerful at 
the top than at the side, it would soon burn the 
gauze but for the great height of the cage, which 
is about five times that of the diameter of the 
lamp at bottom. 

This “ safety-lamp ” is an inestimable present 
to humanity and to science. It has saved thou¬ 
sands of human beings from premature and 
dreadful death, and it has rendered coal the 
cheaper by preventing many collieries from par¬ 
tial or irremediable destruction, which is an in¬ 
calculable advantage, as there is now no article 
of greater importance for our domestic comfort, 
and for the prosecution of the arts, manufactures, 
and sciences. The name of Sir Humphrey 
Davy will, by this discover)', go down to the 
latest posterity. 


This is considered to be a very pure, and it 
certainly is a very important, specimen of induc¬ 
tion. The method recommended by Bacon is 
here strictly and most triumphantly followed. It 
is indeed a noble instance of his plan for study¬ 
ing the sciences, yet it might be more satisfac¬ 
tory to produce an example of an ordinary argu¬ 
ment, and to show how syllogistic artifice must 
yield to its superior force. This is, however, of 
great consequence for our main object, as it 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


101 


gives you a proof of how the sciences must have 
suffered by the old plan, and enables you the 
better to comprehend, how the human mind was 
enslaved for 2000 years till Bacon came to its 
aid. It will also make you understand why 
chemistry lingered so deplorably in Aristotelian 
times, for, if we suppose one of that school at¬ 
tempting to find out a safety-lamp, it will seem 
clear that he never could arrive at the discovery. 
We will suppose him to know previously as much 
as Davy did, which was indeed no more than 
every miner knew, that flame only would ignite 
fire-damp. His first proceeding is to make out 
a syllogism, the conclusion of which is, that flame 
is indispensable for the ignition of fire-damp. 
Having thus proved satisfactorily what no one 
denied, he then, instead of examining, as Davy 
did, what proportion of common air is requisite 
to produce an explosion, goes into a philosophical 
investigation of fire itself in the enlarged sense 
of the word. He finds that it is, according to 
Aristotle, one of “ the four elements,” and con¬ 
sequently a thing not to be lightly dismissed. 
That flame is fire he proves by a syllogism, but 
then, why flames and sparks should be so very 
different in their powers—this seems to argue 
that the difference is very important. It is use¬ 
less, therefore, to proceed further, till this point 
be probed to the bottom. Accordingly he rea¬ 
sons most logically, and very extensively, on this 
subject, assists his reasonings by numerous ex¬ 
periments, and has finally the satisfaction of de¬ 
monstrating, that that part of fire called sparks, 


102 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


or red-hot iron, will not ignite any mixture of 
atmospheric air and fire-damp, but that flame 
will. 

Any one else would think, that he is now only 
where he was when he first set out on his voyage 
of discovery, but our worthy peripatetic thinks 
very differently. According to his profound no¬ 
tions, he believes himself to have made consider¬ 
able progress, and he now r suggests the possibility 
of ascertaining, by unremitting attention, whence 
those streams of fire-damp issue, and then of 
stopping up the apertures as we do rat-holes. 
But, as a great number of men should be con¬ 
stantly employed for that purpose, he does not 
think that this suggestion would be well received, 
and he directs his energies towards means for 
drawing off the fire-damp. As this would be in¬ 
deed an effectual remedy, he labors hard to dis¬ 
cover the best modes, but they would be all so 
expensive, and generally so tedious, that, in 
most instances, the explosion must take place 
before they could be brought into operation. 
Forced to see the impracticability of that, he sits 
down seriously to try whether fire-damp could 
not, by a mixture of some other body, be neu¬ 
tralised, or at least rendered comparatively harm¬ 
less. This appears to be very reasonable. Nox¬ 
ious smells have been quickly destroyed in large 
apartments, by overpowering them with a 
stronger, and yet a more agreeable, scent— ergo , 
the ignitible quality of fire-damp and common 
air might be at least weakened by a mixture of 
something else. To this end he tries innume- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


103 


rable experiments, and, though he does not suc¬ 
ceed as he could wish, he feels perfectly satisfied, 
like the alchymists in pursuit of gold-making, 
that the thing will yet be discovered. 

While he is thus toiling in deep philosophical 
researches, the lamp seems to be lost sight of al¬ 
together, and yet the miners insist, as ignorance 
is always impatient, that nothing wilj^ do but a 
lamp the flame of which shall be secured against 
contact with the external air. Those fellows 
do not, and what is more, never did in any 
times, understand syllogistic argument, and when 
they hear how he has been laboring for their 
good without producing any thing which they, 
like brutes as they are, have not intellect to 
appreciate, they exclaim, “ that he might as well 
be whistling jiggs to a milestone as to get up a 
lamp, such as would suit them, by that there kind 
o’ way.” He does, however, at length turn his 
thoughts towards the lamp, and he then demon¬ 
strates that fire cannot exist without oxygen, and 
that, as a lamp cannot bum without a supply of 
that fluid, its flame must be in contact with the 
external air. His conclusion is therefore, that 
it is quite impossible to contrive any lamp 
that will not be liable to cause explosions. 
Should this be doubted, he is ready to confirm it 
by new syllogisms, in addition to those which he 
has already given, and which he pledges himself 
cannot be controverted. 

Now I assure you that, in all this, there is 
very little of exaggeration. Is it not proved by ex¬ 
perience ? Every one admits that the old che- 


104 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


mists made hardly any progress during twenty 
centuries, while the discoveries of the last eighty 
years fill us with astonishment. We cannot as¬ 
sign an earlier date to modern chemistry, and 
that means when chemists began, generally, to 
shake off the Aristotelian fetters, and apply in¬ 
duction to the science. They then began to 
work in earnest—before that they were only 
philosophising. 

I think that you must be highly gratified by 
this example. It shows you more clearly than 
by any description, the connexion of logic with 
the study of the sciences. I dare to say that, 
notwithstanding all the pains that I had pre¬ 
viously taken, you could not well conceive what 
it had to do with chemistry, which seems to be 
more a work of the hands than of the head, and 
which requires the use of machines, instruments, 
and even ordinary tools. You now see that 
plainly which was before indistinct. This is 
very important, because every one easily appre¬ 
hends why logic is necessary for an argument, 
or for the discussion of abstruse questions, but 
only a few can understand how it is applicable 
to science. You see also the real working of the 
two systems on the same occasion. The Davy 
example proves the value of induction by its 
splendid result—the peripatetic example shows 
how valueless the old system is as to any rational 
usefulness. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


105 


A PEEP INTO PHILOSOPHY. 

It is right that you should know something 
of what the philosophical world are doing. You 
must, however, be satisfied with even less than 
an outline. A bare list of all the various sys¬ 
tems, as they are called, would require a heavy 
volume, and I can do little more than explain 
what it is that is designated philosophy. 

From the earliest ages of literature, certain 
men applied themselves to the discovery of 
truth. Of these, not only the names but the 
particular doctrines of some, who lived 500 
years B. C., have come regularly down to us, 
and it is scarcely necessary to say that they 
were Grecians. These men were called philo¬ 
sophers, because the business of their lives was 
to acquire what was, in their opinion, real know¬ 
ledge. For instance one of them, Anaxagoras, 
who died 428 years B. C., at the age of 72, 
used to say “ that he preferred a grain of wis¬ 
dom to heaps of gold,” yet still, though he travel¬ 
led into Egypt for improvement, some of his no¬ 
tions, particularly on the heavens, were absurd 
in the extreme. The “ discovery of truth” 
means, the establishing of some particular point, 
tenet or doctrine, by irresistible arguments, but, 
unfortunately, no philosopher ever yet maintain¬ 
ed any position or assertion that was not as¬ 
sailed by another. We may say, without any 
overstraining, that the aim of philosophy appears 
to be undoing rather than doing. No sooner 
does a philosophical work appear than another 
G 


100 OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 

is preparing to refute it, either partly or entirely. 
Demolition seems to be the grand business of 
philosophy, for, as new subjects cannot be always 
found, there is never a lack of employment in 
taking to pieces the labors of others. Every 
new system is followed, as a matter of course, 
by its refutation, and sometimes we are favored 
with refutations of refutations. This has been 
the usual routine of philosophy from the earliest 
times of antiquity, and it still continues the same. 
Each professor thinks, nay is quite certain, that 
he is right, but we, who must keep at humble 
distance from such profound reasoners, know 
this truth at least that they cannot be all right 
— ergo, some of them are wrong. 

The philosophy to which I have adverted is 
the higher department, or that which relates to 
our faculties, powers or affections, and is called 
Ontology, or generally Metaphysics. Here it is 
that there is such sad disunion. Might I dare 
to offer an opinion I would say, that it arises 
from not admitting exceptions. Philosophers 
maintain that there can be no exception in favor 
of any thing proved to be true or false, good or 
bad, just or unjust, or of any other character. 
If it be true or false, or good or bad, it must 
be so, without any extenuation, under every 
circumstance whatsoever. This is much too 
severe for poor human nature, and conse¬ 
quently they have been laboring for twenty- 
five centuries, without establishing even one 
solitary unassailable truth, except such little 
truisms as have been known to every child since 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


107 


the beginning of the world. I think that I can 
give you a clear explanation of this by an ex¬ 
ample, and it shall be by the very word truth 
itself. You are asked, “Is not truth good ?’’ 
and you of course unhesitatingly answer Yes. 
Then, “ Since truth is good, should it not be 
spoken at all times ?” to which, as an honest 
man, you again as promptly say Yes. See now 
in what a predicament you stand by the fol¬ 
lowing case:— 

An amiable young gentleman, who was fol¬ 
lowed by hired assassins, escaped, unperceived 
by them, into the house of a rigid no-exception 
philosopher, who was his dearest and most inti¬ 
mate friend, and to whom he explained his 
danger. The assassins coming up, and seeing 
the philosopher at his door, asked if he were 
there. His character for veracity was such 
that, on a simple denial, they would have imme¬ 
diately gone away, but his principles would not 
allow him to say No, and they accordingly went 
in, found the young gentleman concealed in a 
back apartment, and murdered him. 

Now, were you this young man’s father, 
would not you account our philosopher as the 
murderer of your son ? Your answer would be 
that which every father would give, and you 
would bitterly curse such wretched philosophy. 
But let us examine the matter calmly, and per¬ 
haps even then we shall find nothing for admira¬ 
tion. We will suppose the philosopher deeply 
affected, as no doubt he was, by such a terrible 
sacrifice to principle, but was there no vanity or 


108 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


self-love at the bottom of it ? He had acquired 
a character for undeviating truth, which would 
be lost if he swerved in this instance. The assas¬ 
sins might afterwards have learned, though too 
late for their wicked purpose, that the gentleman 
was in the house when they inquired, and the 
philosopher’s fame would be tarnished. Is it not 
a fair question, therefore, whether he sacrifised 
more to self-love than to truth or principle ? It 
would, indeed, have been a noble sacrifice to 
save his innocent friend on the altar of his own 
popularity or fame, but vanity, self-love, false 
pride, and uncontrollable ambition, were stronger 
incentives. 

Turn this proceeding in what way soever we 
can, it shows the danger and the folly of what 
some weak-minded men would, in the simplicity 
of their hearts, call philosophy. Nature and re¬ 
ligion teach us to prevent, as far as we can, the 
perpetration of crime. Murder, especially of 
the innocent and virtuous, is one of the first 
magnitude, but, according to those ravers, we 
must see it committed sooner than utter the 
monosyllable no. Nature, religion, and every 
thing else is, with them, as nothing compared to 
the violation of a philosophical principle. 

I presume to offer a remedy for this defect in 
philosophy, for surely that must be a defect 
which has produced nothing tenable, or available 
for our guidance. When investigating any 
truth or principle, after having demonstrated its 
propriety, utility or excellence, we should then 
diligently examine whether it may not be liable 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 10JJ 

to some exceptions. I know that this proposi¬ 
tion will be laughed at by the philosophers, but 
I may laugh at them in turn, since, by main¬ 
taining a contrary doctrine, they are laboring in 
vain, and literally doing nothing but wasting 
paper. Human nature is too imperfect for in¬ 
variable rules, and the only way to develop 
truth is, to make the necessary allowances for 
our imperfections. Many things are easily proved 
to be so and so, but it is not quite so easy to 
prove that they are always the same. Excep¬ 
tions are the inheritance of our nature, and 
to refuse them is to despair of truth. Thus 
every one admits that prudence is a virtue, but 
to prove satisfactorily what prudence is, unex- 
ceptionably, may be found somewhat difficult. 
However we will suppose it proved. What 
then? Prudence has often lost a man, while 
acknowledged imprudence has saved another. 
But then it will be alleged, that this does not at 
all militate against prudence being a virtue. 
Be it so. But we must recollect that, in pro¬ 
nouncing prudence a virtue, we mean that it 
is wisdom, and a want of wisdom'has sometimes 
proved to be more serviceable than wisdom itself. 

When I mentioned prudence it was because 
it occurred to me at the moment, but it is only a 
poor instance in comparison to others that might 
be adduced. It serves, however, to show the 
necessity for an exceptive system. When we 
ask for results, as to those philosophers’ labors, 
what do we find but “a beggarly account of 
empty boxes ?’ They have, in fact, been doing 


110 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


little else tlian quarrelling—knocking one an¬ 
other down for the pure love of truth. But, in¬ 
stead of trying to catch an unmanageable illusion, 
they might have been usefully employed in ex¬ 
amining the imperfections of received truths, 
and, without fundamentally destroying such 
truths, in enumerating and classifying the con¬ 
tingent exceptions that must, by reason of our 
great distance from perfection, inevitably occur. 
By received truths I mean those only which, for 
sake of convenience or morality, we must admit, 
such as that of prudence being a virtue—for 
when the complete fallacy of any assertion, how¬ 
ever popular or long sanctioned, is discovered, 
it should be vigorously attacked without the 
least ceremony. Had philosophers directed 
their, attention as I have hinted, even from the 
time of Bacon without at all alluding to anterior 
ages, we should now have a vast accumulation 
of valuable points of knowledge in metaphysics, 
established and confirmed by successive investi¬ 
gations. It would also have prevented a num¬ 
ber of absurd theories which, under the attractive 
glare of learning , have tended to degrade rather 
than to exalt the mind of man, by filling it with 
dangerous doubts as to the possibility or exist¬ 
ence of any truth. 

Great Britain, France and Germany, are the 
chief seats of this philosophy. Writers and 
system-makers have sometimes appeared else¬ 
where, but while Scotland teems with “ feeloso- 
phers,” as Cobbett used to call them, it is re¬ 
markable that Ireland is nearly a blank in this 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


1)1 


respect, though I am far from looking on it as a 
discredit. Have not we, plain people, a right to 
inquire about what they have been doing down 
to the present time ? May we not respectfully 
ask, whether they have fixed any one point of 
positive utility, established any one rule of gene¬ 
ral advantage, or brought to light any one thing 
or principle of undeniable service to man ? Ob¬ 
serve that we, with all our ignorance, are not 
unreasonable. We do not look for wonderful 
developments or brilliant discoveries. Inquiries 
about our intellectual powers cannot be expected 
to lead further than to solid conclusions, but 
it would appear that they have led to nothing 
decisive. 

Indeed if we press for results, I believe that 
Locke will bear away the palm. By proving 
that we have no innate ideas, he did actually 
open a field for practicable experiment, for it 
was on this that Mr. Owen founded his grand 
“co-operation” plan. He proceeded on the 
assumption, that our notions are formed FOR 
and not BY us, which is essentially the no-innate 
idea doctrine. Accordingly he believed it quite 
possible, to educate children with notions and 
dispositions very different from what are gene¬ 
rally inculcated, and that they might be brought 
to such amiable habits as to live in charity to¬ 
wards each other, almost free from those vices 
or turbulent passions that produce such unhap¬ 
piness in the world. He completely established 
the feasibility of his plan at New Lanark, for, 
amidst the despoiling influence of unavoidable 


112 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


connexion with the vitiated, he did effect a moral 
change sufficient to justify his assertions. His 
project failed only because, from the constitution 
of present society, it was quite impossible to 
afford it a fair trial. 

It is difficult for us to conceive, what possible 
benefit can arise from certain questions on which 
philosophers have written volumes, and vehe¬ 
mently contradicted each other, such as man’s 
free will or agency, and why he can stir a finger 
or let it alone, just as he pleases— synchronous 
ideas, or whether we can think of two things at 
once, or whether the mind does not glide, though 
imperceptibly, from one to the other—whether 
smelling is not more in the mind than the nose, 
and whether it is not thus that we distinguish 
between the disagreeable and the pleasant— 
why we can, without seeing either, know the 
noise of a drum from that of a cart—how we 
can fix our sight on a single speck, or on an ex¬ 
tension of miles. To us it seems of no im¬ 
portance whether such points be ever definitively 
settled, but, as philosophers have considered 
them more deeply than we, our best plan is not 
to meddle with such profound matters. But, 
since they sometimes enter upon discussions not 
quite so harmless, I think it right to observe that 
Dr. Reid says, when reprobating Hume’s 
“ shocking” paradox, that things may begin to 
exist without a cause, “ What is there so ridicu¬ 
lous as not to be maintained by some philoso¬ 
pher ?” 

This must suffice for ontology, or the abstruse 


OLD AM) NEW LOGIC. 


113 


department. You see that I could not avoid 
being tedious, though I fear that I have very 
imperfectly satisfied your curiosity. But you 
must recollect, that I have been endeavouring 
to convey some notion of what has occupied 
a hundred thousand volumes, and you must give 
that consideration its due weight. 

The other branches of philosophy are much 
more intelligible. You have heard of the New¬ 
tonian, the Linnean, and many others, generally 
called after the names of their founders. The 
first relates to astronomy, colors, optics—the 
other to botany. These enrich the world with 
many valuable discoveries that enlarge our ge¬ 
neral comforts or knowledge, because they are 
chiefly based on actual inspection or experiment. 
But they are, nevertheless, called philosophy,' 
because they must necessarily embrace a good 
portion of speculation, or what is purely philoso¬ 
phical. Thus astronomy attempts to demon¬ 
strate that the earth’s atmosphere extends to 46 
miles in height, though no balloon ever yet as¬ 
cended much beyond our highest mountains. The 
business of a geologist is, to explain the structure 
of our globe as far as it can be known, yet he is 
not satisfied without considering the interior of 
which we know nothing, since the deepest exca¬ 
vation ever made has been scarcely a mile in 
perpendicular depth, which can hardly be called 
penetrating the earth’s skin. But all such 
things are fair subjects of speculative theories, 
because, however absurd some of them may be, 


i 14 


ULI) AND NEW LOGIC. 



many of them have led at length to actual proof. 
Besides, supposing that they did not lead to any 
positive conviction, it is beneath the dignity of 
man to sit down contented when he meets an 
obstacle and say, “ I must stop now.” A thirst 
for knowledge elevates, honors, and even glori¬ 
fies our frail nature—it is that which particu¬ 
larly distinguishes the civilised from the savage. 
Every sensible person feels assured that we can 
never visit the moon, but is that a reason that we 
should not try to discover if it be inhabited ? 

But the term philosophy has been carried 
a little too far, and is now literally burlesqued. 
Books are published called the philosophy of 
fishing, hunting, shooting, cooking, drinking, 
walking the streets, boxing, chess-playing, and 
even a tailor will advertise his philosophy of 
fitting. What else could be expected ? The 
learned have brought all this on themselves. 
Could they not let philosophy remain confined 
to its proper sphere ? No. They could not 
take a new or enlarged view of any thing, with¬ 
out calling it philosophy, like the late Mr. John 
Walker, an eminent scholar, who called his 
scientific treatise on arithmetic, “ The Philoso¬ 
phy of Arithmetic.” Need we wonder then 
that architects, painters, musicians, and others, 
should publish their systems of philosophy, and 
that so handsome a word should at length de¬ 
scend gradually to cooks and tailors ? Diogenes, 
a filthy unwashed dog, whom no decent man 
could approach with unstopped nostrils, and who 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


U5 


was banished from his country for coining false 
money, is still in the list of philosophers, because 
he loved dirt and snarling systematically . 


Fearing that I may not have completely sa¬ 
tisfied you, as to what our ontological gentlemen 
are doing for your benefit, I shall say a word on 
the synchronous-ideas philosophy, because 1 
think that I can make it tolerably intelligible. 
They regard it as extremely important, and 
it has occupied many and many a ream of 
foolscap. 

This means, as I said before, whether we can 
think of two things at once. As usual, our phi¬ 
losophers are not here in accord. For some 
maintain that we can, while others insist that 
there is a gliding of the mind, though scarcely 
perceptible, from one to another. They gene¬ 
rally illustrate the matter by a guinea. One 
says he is sure, when he looks at it, that he can, 
at once, see and comprehend its circular form and 
yellow color, but another is equally certain that 
he only imagines that he does so, because the 
mind must pass, however instantaneously, from 
the circular form to the yellow color, or from the 
yellow color to the circular form. Both parties 
lavish a great deal of logical argument to prove 
their respective doctrines, yet, despite of logic, 
neither convinces the other, for he who is iso¬ 
chronal—look in Johnson—will not yield to the 
non-isochronal, nor this last to the isochronal. 



116 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


Now you have doubtless seen an able master 
of the piano-forte, harp or organ, play at first 
sight, and in strict time, a piece where the bass 
was entirely different from the treble. Here, to 
say nothing of chords or pedals, are four distinct 
operations at once, that is, reading and playing 
each of the two lines. But there are some who 
will, in addition, sing another part different from 
the treble, with words, and here we have no less 
than eight operations comprising four of the sight, 
two of the hands, one of speaking, and one of 
singing, all done at the same time, and without 
the advantage of any previous preparation. I 
know not whether our worthy metaphysicians 
ever lighted on this, but I know that I never saw 
it in any of their dissertations, and I conceive that 
it goes very near proving that we can think of 
two things at once. But I advise you, however, 
to keep your peace, and never show your skill 
by any contention of this kind. You would gain 
nothing by it, for the gliders would insist that our 
performer slips unawares from one operation to 
another. Let us admire in silence, and not dis¬ 
turb their profound meditations. 

I cannot conceal my gratification on finding 
that Lord Bacon strongly supports my exceptive 
views. It is extremely perilous for one like 
me to hazard any suggestion concerning philoso¬ 
phy, and I am, therefore, greatly relieved on 
being backed by such authority. He particu¬ 
larly recommends “ the registering of doubts,” 
and that comes very close to what I have ven¬ 
tured to propose. After dividing doubts into 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


117 


two kinds, “ particular and total,’’ he says in his 
Advancement of Learning :— 

“ The registering of doubts hath two excel¬ 
lent uses: the one, that it saveth philosophy from 
errors and falsehoods, when that which is not 
fully appearing is not collected into assertion, 
whereby error might draw error, but reserved in 
doubt. The other, that the entry of doubts are 
as so many suckers or spunges to draw use of 
knowledge ; insomuch, as that which, if doubts 
had not preceded, a man should never have ad¬ 
vised, but passed it over without note, by the 
suggestion and solicitation of doubts is made to 
be attended and applied.” 

The last sentence is an exceedingly bad spe¬ 
cimen of composition. But we can perceive, 
however, that the doctrine, if it be not exactly 
my exceptive system, is at least an indication of 
it, and shows how difficult it is to think of any 
thing connected with reasoning that Bacon has 
not considered. He further says :— 

“ But that use of wit and knowledge is to be 
allowed, which laboreth to make doubtful things 
certain, and not those [that] which labor [la¬ 
boreth] to make certain things doubtful.” 

Now that is not far from my idea about ex¬ 
ceptions, and, as to what I have said on the 
utility of enumerating or pointing of them out, 
I think that I am strongly supported by Bacon, 
for he adds :— 

“ Therefore these calenders of doubts, I com¬ 
mend as excellent things, so that there be this 
caution used, that when they be thoroughly 
H 


118 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


sifted and brought to resolution, they be from 
henceforth omitted, discarded, and not continued 
to cherish and encourage men in doubting.” 

This is exactly the principle that I have in¬ 
culcated, that “ when the complete fallacy of any 
assertion, however popular or long sanctioned, 
is discovered, it should be attacked without ce¬ 
remony.” I am therefore eased of any scruples 
that I may have had about an exceptive system, 
and I now offer my considerations with increased 
confidence. 

RECEIPT FOR ANSWERING A FA¬ 
MOUS QUESTION OF THE ARIS¬ 
TOTELIANS. 

When they are driven into a comer by an 
able logician, who is not scared by their heaviest 
fire of pop-gun syllogisms, they will, as a last 
resource, ask with seeming humility, Whether 
the agreement of nearly the entire learned world 
for above 2000 years, and which still continues 
pretty generally, is not something like a proof 
that Aristotle’s syllogistic system could not be 
very wrong ? Should any of them ever put that 
question to you, answer immediately No, and 
then proceed to support your negation induc¬ 
tively, that is, “ by collecting facts and instances, 
and deducing from them a general conclusion.” 
As a single instance will, in some cases, serve as 
well as a thousand, I shall furnish you with one 
which will set this famous question at rest :— 
The Heathen Mythology. —We am 
every day dis overing proofs that the Greeks, 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


119 


however unwilling their historians appear in ad¬ 
mitting it, originally borrowed a great part of 
their learning, science, and civilisation itself, 
from the Egyptians. That they took their my¬ 
thology or religion from them is not denied, for 
Osiris, the great deity of the Egyptians, was 
deemed the son of Jupiter. The kingdom of 
Sycion was founded 2089 years B. C., but, 
without going so far back, we shall take no ear¬ 
lier than the siege of Troy, which dates about 
1190. The Greeks must then have been in a 
tolerably advanced state, for Hesiod, who lived 
say two and a half centuries after, says that they 
reckoned, in his time, 30,000 gods and god¬ 
desses—a proof that they must have been a peo¬ 
ple of considerable literature for a long period 
before. It is admitted that they engrossed learn¬ 
ing and civilisation to themselves, and that they 
justly looked on the rest of the world, not except¬ 
ing even the Romans, their ultimate conquerors, 
as barbarians. When Rome became the mis¬ 
tress of the world, and the centre of polished 
society, she continued the heathen mythology, 
which she had originally imported from Greece, 
till about 330 A. D., when Constantine estab¬ 
lished Christianity. But Julian the Apostate 
introduced heathenism once more about 380, 
and, though it was quickly superseded again by 
Christianity, we can hardly suppose that it was 
extirpated in less than a century after. By 
extirpation I mean its general rejection or 
abandonment, and I think I may very fairly set 
that down to 480, if not 500. Now 1190 added 


120 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


to 330 make 1520 years, during which it was 
the religion of the most learned people in the then 
world, as is acknowledged by all our writers. 
But it was also that of Egypt for probably 1000 
years before the siege of Troy, though I shall say 
only 500 to obviate any cavilling, and this, added 
to 1520, makes 2220 years, during which the 
heathenism in question was professed by three 
of the most polished nations of antiquity suc¬ 
cessively, without including the 150 years of its 
decline, which would make 2370. 

The sun of Egypt was setting when Troy fell, 
but she is allowed to have been the grand, if not 
the exclusive, emporium of learning and science, 
for a long period when Greece was in a rude 
state. Her mythology was substantially the 
same as that which prevailed afterwards so ex¬ 
tensively, for the vast additions of the Greeks 
were only what they would call improvements. 
Here then we have three of the most cele¬ 
brated communities professing, during 2220 
years, such a rank absurdity as that no one, for 
many hundred centuries, has ventured to advo¬ 
cate the re-establishment. 

For a Christian to speak of its absurdity might 
seem to be superfluous, but I wash to show, ex¬ 
clusive of its incompatibility with reason or com¬ 
mon sense, its striking inconsistency even with 
itself. To say nothing of the inferior divinities, 
some of whom were murderers, thieves, drunk¬ 
ards, robbers or cheats, and appointed to filthy 
offices from which decency turns w r ith disgust, 
we should expect that Jupiter at least, the 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


121 


“almighty” Jove, would be a pure character. 
But what do we find him? A fornicator, an 
adulterer, and, worse than all, as supreme ar¬ 
biter, a partial, and often a cruelly unjust, judge! 
Besides several mistresses, he had seven wives, 
with the last of whom, his own sister! Juno, 
“ the Queen of Heaven,” he lived very unhap¬ 
pily, owing to her well-founded jealousy. They 
used to have regular scolding matches, in one of 
which words w r ent so high that he called her 
a bitch, according to the authority, I think, of 
Homer, and he often beat her severely. His 
lust was so unbridled that he has frequently 
come down from his “ high Olympus,” and de¬ 
flowered innocent maidens on earth, so that pa¬ 
rents who had handsome daughters were kept in 
a state of constant inquietude, as he was a great 
judge of female beauty, and assumed shapes to 
accomplish his purpose which it would be inde¬ 
licate to mention. Even before he married his 
sister, he violated her by stratagem. 

On reading this, one would think that the 
Greeks and Romans set at naught chastity, con¬ 
jugal fidelity, justice, temperance, moderation, 
and all other virtues. Yet they estimated them 
in a certain manner, while their gods and god¬ 
desses practised all sorts of crime, and here it 
is that their strange inconsistency appears. 
Some, who are classic-mad, attempt their de¬ 
fence by saying that the well informed did not 
believe in this mythology, and that they kept it 
up only to overawe the vulgar, but this is a mis¬ 
erable attempt at their vindication. It is in 


122 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


peril that our belief in a religion appears. We 
commonly assert that sailors, who never prayed 
before, do utter prayers for their souls when the 
ship is settling, and all hope of saving their bo¬ 
dies gone, and we find the Greeks and Romans, 
when under any great calamity, offering solemn 
sacrifices to appease the anger of some god 
whom they had, as they believed, provoked by a 
neglect of his customary honors. Yes. It is in 
vain to deny that they believed in this mytho¬ 
logy. They prosecuted the greatest men for 
blasphemy, or “ irreverence to the gods,” and 
enforced their strict worship by numerous laws 
and regulations. Socrates himself, who was 
so enlightened as to arrive at a just notion of a 
Supreme Being, and who cheerfully suffered 
death sooner than deny it—Socrates, who ap¬ 
proached so near to Christianity before it was 
known, had still some qualms as to respect 
towards certain gods, for he acknowledged it on 
his trial, and his last words were, K We owe a 
cock to Esculapius—discharge that vow.” Da- 
cier attempts to defend this, but what defence 
can avail against the simple undisputed fact ? 

In short it betrays great ignorance to say, 
that the learned did not believe in the gods. 
There were, to be sure, some who did not, but 
have not we our Voltaires, Humes, and other 
deistical writers, in perhaps a greater proportion ? 
When the Roman consuls entered into office, 
they were always obliged to offer Juno a solemn 
sacrifice, and if we allege that none of them be¬ 
lieved in its efficacy, why then we must allow 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


123 


the Romans to say, supposing them the moderns 
and we the ancients, “ The Speaker of the Bri¬ 
tish house of commons always, before proceed¬ 
ing to business, prayed for a blessing through 
Christ Jesus, but it is unnecessary to observe 
that none of that illustrious and enlightened body 
believed in its efficacy, as the whole thing was 
merely a piece of policy for an example to John 
Bull—a common name for the vulgar multitude.” 

So far from concurring in such opinions, I do 
not hesitate to say, that the belief of the learned 
Greeks and Romans was much more sincere and 
universal than what is found in Christianity'. 
Their dissenters, if we except the Epicureans, 
rarely went so far as total unbelief, while we 
have, besides unblushing deists, entire sects 
living as Christians, two of whom might be parti¬ 
cularly mentioned, who are justly suspected of 
not believing in the divinity of Christ, since they 
will never give an explicit answer on that im¬ 
portant point. 

The heathen mythology was, in every possi¬ 
ble view, the most senseless, ridiculous, impious, 
stupidly inconsistent, and outrageously mon¬ 
strous, religious system that was ever devised. 
It was a complete inversion of every thing in the 
nature of religion, for it made the deities, chief 
and all, devils. What can be imagined more 
unnatural than to pray, and offer sacrifices, to 
those whom we believe to be infamous ? We 
deplore the unlettered savage who worships the 
sun, or a piece of wood, that he fashions, with a 
sharp stone, into a frightful figure, though this 


124 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


is not worse, for nothing could be worse, than 
the detestable heathen mythology. The mis¬ 
sionaries at Ceylon were shocked at finding the 
natives worshipping the devil, but they gave, in 
substance, this explanation, “ God is too good 
to do us any harm, and we, therefore, rather pro¬ 
pitiate the devil who is constantly at work for 
our injury.” Now that is a better reason than 
could be given for the abominable heathen wor¬ 
ship, for they at least admitted one good deity, 
whereas the Greeks and Romans seemed deter¬ 
mined to have all their divinities, male and fe¬ 
male, not excepting Jove himself, either shame¬ 
lessly bad, or stained with some particular vice. 
They would not let even their guardians of any 
virtue remain pure, and accordingly Diana, the 
patroness of chastity, after having long preserved 
her virginity, at last makes a slip, and not only 
prostitutes herself to Endymion, but actually 
seduces him After that she was intimate with 
Pan, and the giant Orion, and yet the most 
splendid temple, that at Ephesus, which was one 
of the Seven Wonders of the World, was erected 
and consecrated to her memory and worship as 
“ Goddess of Chastity !” 

In reviewing this sickening prostration of 
reason and common sense, our only consolation 
is that such a diabolical faith, for it surely was a 
worship of monsters, has been so completely 
eradicated. After the year 500, or perhaps 
somewhat before, no people were foolish enough 
to profess it. For those who the most obsti¬ 
nately resisted Christianity, as the Slavons or 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


125 


Poles, had a particular paganism of their own 
like the ancient Gauls, Germans, British, Irish, 
and others, nor has any one since made an 
attempt at its revival. This is indeed conso¬ 
latory, for it cannot be said to arise from timi¬ 
dity, or any lack of foolhardiness. Many and 
many are the ridiculous and impious doctrines 
that have been broached under the name of 
religion, as for instance those of the Adamites. 
This sect appeared in Germany, I think about 
three centuries ago, and afterwards spread to 
England. In imitation of our first parents they 
went naked, lived in common, and, after the 
example of Cain and Abel, they married their 
sisters ! At length the different governments 
put them down by force, but have we not seen,, 
in our own days, people deifying a wretched 
old woman, and persons of rank and wealth 
providing a most costly silver cradle for 
her forthcoming “ Shiloh ?” Surely we may 
believe such fanatics capable of the greatest ab¬ 
surdity, and yet none of them ever dreamed of 
reviving the heathen mythology. No. That 
was too gross for the wildest visionaries—too> 
nonsensical even for the frantic—too blasphe¬ 
mous tor the most wicked, and too degrading 
for the lowest rabble. 

The utter extinction, throughout the world, of 
the heathen mythology, and the circumstance of 
no direct attempt at its revival during nearly 
fourteen centuries, would bear ample testimony, 
if we Had no other evidence, of its absurdity. 
Yet it was the religion of the philosophers, sages, 
h 2 


126 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


orators, senators, moralists, scholars, and scien¬ 
tific men, of three of the most distinguished coun¬ 
tries in history, during the long period of 2220 
years. What then becomes of the famous Aris¬ 
totelian question ? Is it not quite clear, that the 
general agreement of the learned in any opinion 
or doctrine, for any length of time, is no proof of 
its soundness ? It has been fully demonstrated, 
that the syllogistic system is inefficient as an 
engine for the discovery of truth, or for studying 
the sciences—it has been tested, experiment¬ 
ally, by the superiority of induction, and an ap¬ 
peal to its being so long cherished by the learned 
is no better argument than to say, that because 
they so long believed in the heathen mythology, 
it should never have been superseded by Chris¬ 
tianity. 

Astrology. —Though the heathen mythology 
completely answers the Aristotelian question, 
yet, since this opportunity presents itself, I may 
introduce it as a second argument. But, having 
detained you a good while with the preceding, 
my notice of it shall be very brief. 

Astrology is the oldest science on record, if 
we except astronomy. Even with that it may 
be pronounced coeval, for the first use that was 
made of it appears to be the prediction of events. 
It was practised in Assyria, Babylonia, the 
Hindus and Egypt, and we may say that its 
origin dates from 2233 B. C., when the celes¬ 
tial observations were begun at Babylon. We 
know that it was extensively cultivated by the 
Greeks and Romans, as appears from their very 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


127 


particular accounts of many celebrated profi¬ 
cients in the art of divination. Nor was its pro¬ 
gress at all impeded by the introduction of Chris¬ 
tianity, for it was pursued, not only as a regular 
but a most important science, everywhere by 
men ardent in their belief of the Gospel. It was 
scarcely shaken by even Newton’s discoveries, 
and in fact his Principia was published full half 
a century before the rejection of astrology be¬ 
came general. 

Now here is a study, dignified with the name 
of science , in the hands of the learned for nearly 
4000 years. That it was their exclusive pro¬ 
vince cannot be denied. None could be an as¬ 
trologer without being well versed in whatever 
was known of astronomy at the time, and none 
but the learned could have that knowledge. We 
cannot date the rejection of astrology by the 
learned, generally speaking, earlier than 1740, 
for, even after that, some of them did not disdain 
its study, and it was not completely relegated to 
empirics and impudent impostors much more 
than half a century ago. Perhaps there never 
was a grosser delusion than astrology. It was 
full as ridiculous as the inspection of entrails by 
the Greek and Roman priests, and I now ask 
our Aristotelians, a second time, is the general 
agreement of the learned in any opinion or doc¬ 
trine, for any length of time, a proof of its sound¬ 
ness ? They would modestly insinuate that it 
is, but if, after these two instances to the con¬ 
trary, they do not admit their error, we can only 
pity their incapacity to reason, and lament the 


128 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


deplorable effects of the false logic which they 
advocate. 

W itchcraft.— I mention this, not that there 
is any necessity for further argument, but merely 
as it strikingly exhibits the deplorable effects of 
error among the learned, wise and humane, and 
that too m|.what are universally acknowledged 
to be enlightened times —if there ever was, or 
ever will be, such a phenomenon as enlightened 
times. 

Witchcraft must be of very ancient date, for 
it can be traced in Scripture, and there are indi¬ 
cations of it in Greek and Roman history. 
However, as that kind was different from what 
was known in more modern times, in England, 
France, Germany, and other parts of Europe, 
and which is the object of my strictures, I shall 
not go beyond it in these brief remarks. That 
it must have got very early footing in England, 
is evident from her own writers, and the many 
laws that were made against it, but I shall come 
down at once to queen Elizabeth. It appears 
that witchcraft had increased so alarmingly, that 
additional precautions were deemed necessary, 
and she accordingly had an act passed, full of 
new severities, which may be seen in the statutes 
of 1603. Subsequent monarchs enacted other 
laws to repress this crime, nor were all the sta¬ 
tutes against it repealed till the 9th of George II. 

What was this atrocious crime which excited 
such universal indignation, and which produced 
such direful effects as to call for the most exem¬ 
plary punishments ? Hear ! and listen atten- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 121) 

lively. Figure to yourself then an ignorant 
old woman, so enfeebled by years as to be in¬ 
capable of hardly anything but scandalous gos¬ 
sip, or relating old wive’s tales—-though by the 
bye some young women are reported, perhaps 
maliciously, not to be averse to scandal. But 
that is nothing to us—we go on. This old 
woman was seldom of the middle size—being 
generally very tall or very short, either of which 
were untoward circumstances. She was so dis¬ 
figured by cross-grained wrinkles as to be no 
very pleasing object to behold, and indeed the 
uglier that she was, so much the worse for her¬ 
self, as that alone would plead strongly against 
her. She was what is commonly called a lone 
woman, because she had outlived her family 
and friends, though it would seem that friends 
were scarce in all times, since even philosophers 
themselves still admit, that “ a friend in need is 
a friend indeed.” However, living by herself 
was greatly against her, and yet, if she took in 
some deserted child to break the solitude, which 
sometimes happened, it was alleged that she 
used her as an assistant in her spells. 

Though she subsisted by begging, or, if she 
had ingenuity enough, by fortune-telling, people 
wondered, notwithstanding, how she lived, and 
it was shrewdly imagined that her poverty was 
only a disguise, as she could command any mo¬ 
ney that she pleased. She was at first called a 
beldam, then a hag, and was at length suspected 
to be a witch. She was then reputed to be one, 
and it was finally discovered that she was one 


130 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


actually. This discovery was made by some in¬ 
telligent neighbours, generally of her own sex, 
who, in self-preservation only, paid more atten¬ 
tion to her movements than they did to their 
own business. They observed that she mut¬ 
tered while passing certain doors, for old 
women will talk to themselves, “ any act of par¬ 
liament to the contrary notwithstanding.” As 
they never could make out what she said on 
those occasions, they very sensibly concluded 
that it was something “ not right,” and, if any 
one died in the house a few days after she passed 
it while muttering, what could be plainer than 
that she had caused the death ? Yet, though 
that was sufficient to satisfy the most incredu¬ 
lous mortal existing, they were not rash or pre¬ 
cipitous in their judgments, and they did not 
proceed to extremities till some fine young men 
or women, who had formerly excellent constitu¬ 
tions, began to pine away, and become con¬ 
sumptive. They then searched her apartment, 
for she chose to have but one though she could 
easily command a palace, and there they found 
the most appalling proofs of her guilt. These 
consisted of melted lead or wax—hair or wool 
twisted into shocking knots, or other forms still 
worse, and, to complete the evidence of her wick¬ 
edness, a broom! the identical one on which 
many credible witnesses had seen her, on clear 
moonlight nights, riding in the air, and going 
through the windows, no matter how high, of the 
rooms wherein her victims slept. All these facts 
would be quite sufficient to establish her guilt, 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


131 


but what sealed her condemnation was the finding 
of a waxen figure, especially if part were melted 
off, which bore a resemblance to some one who 
had recently died before that person ought to 
have died. In that case they immediately beat 
or stoned her to death, but, when the laws made 
that felony, they indicted her for witchcraft, and, 
if found guilty, she was sentenced to be burned 
alive, though hanging was the punishment of 
ordinary murderers. 

Good God ! can any one consider this without 
being amazed at the slow progress of reason ? 
To think of an attorney-general prosecuting with 
all the ardor of a man anxious to have guilt 
punished, and he again supported by able crown 
lawyers—a learned, humane, and upright judge, 
impartially sifting the evidence, weighing it 
against the possibility of innocence on the part 
of the accused, laboriously reviewing the whole, 
and tenderly leaning to the side of mercy when¬ 
ever any fair opportunity offered—twelve honest 
citizens, any one of whom would shudder at 
doing an act of injustice, conscientiously return¬ 
ing a verdict of guilty—the judge receiving it as 
the only one which they, as men sworn to try the 
case “ well and truly,’ ’ could give, and then passing 
sentence of a cruel death with feelings testifying 
his regret, that the enormity of the offence should 
call for so severe a punishment—and lastly, the 
executioner doing his dreadful duty amidst the 
approbation of the multitude. I say when we 
think of all this, is it not enough to make us 
shrink from our very selves, and to ask, where 


132 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


is the superiority of what is called learning over 
what we designate ignorance ? 

But all is not yet told. Those laws were 
passed by a numerous body—the very first 
class of commoners, chosen as the representa¬ 
tives of a great nation, with the concurrence of 
three hundred noblemen, whose rank, descent, 
education, and fortune placed them, in this in¬ 
stance certainly, above any views beyond the 
public good, and the monarch gave assent with 
equal sincerity. It cannot be denied, that all the 
learning of the country heartily agreed in the 
necessity and wisdom of those laws, and they 
were in active operation less than a century and 
a half past, for they were not repealed until 
1730. We are to keep in mind too, that simi¬ 
larly wise doings were going on, about the same 
time, in France, and elsewhere on the continent, 
and, when we inquire the reason for such san¬ 
guinary proceedings, we find it to be, that all 
learned, intelligent and equitable men believed in 
the power of a silly old woman to inflict serious 
injuries on whomsoever she pleased, by the 
agency of Old Nick, or of other evil spirits ! 

After this sample, will the Aristotelians insi¬ 
nuate, that the concurrence of the learned is any 
proof that what they advocate or encourage must 
be right ? 


But you will naturally ask, how are we to 
know at all what is right, if we are not to be¬ 
lieve what the whole learned world advocate? 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


133 


The question appears to be startling, but it is no 
more alarming than the bellowing of a bull, or 
the braying of an ass, which no way frightens 
us, though it would seem terrible to those who 
heard it for the first time. We are not now as 
they were formerly. Our state or condition is 
greatly altered, and I must premise that the 
change is entirely owing to Bacon. Some part 
of it may be referred to printing, but, without 
him, that would have been only a feeble assist¬ 
ance in dispelling long established errors. He 
first taught us to insist on evidence, and that 
struck, a deadly blow against general acquies¬ 
cence in delusion. This is the reason why your 
would-be philosophers are so hostile to him. 
They hate him because he opened the eyes of 
the vulgar, who, without knowing a word of 
Greek or Latin, have now the impudence to ask 
them for proofs of their most profound speculations 
or assertions. “ The learned all believe it ” has 
no longer its former weight, and is it any wonder 
that they should be incensed against him who 
drove them, unceremoniously, from their dignified 
monopoly of knowledge, and enabled plain men 
to question the infallibility of their decisions ? 

Believe me that you need not, from my “ Re¬ 
ceipt,” conjure up any fears about the difficulty 
of judging aright. There seems no likelihood 
whatsoever, that, the learned can ever again sway 
the world, or plunge it into that deplorable state 
of delusion which they formerly accomplished. 
Their supremacy is now, happily for us, effec¬ 
tually invaded, and so many checks and balances 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


K34 


are tlirown in their way that they can no longer 
act arbitrarily. Yet those literary despots were 
always talking of “ the republic of letters,” for 
you will find that expression in very old books, 
whereas the truth is that literature was not a 
republic, properly speaking, till the present cen¬ 
tury, nor has it even yet a tree constitution. 
You may rely on it that the learned can never 
again do the injury that they formerly did. To be 
sure they must always have some hobby, such as 
craniology, which they have been, for twenty-five 
years, striving to bolster up into a science. But 
all will not do, though they have changed the 
name to phrenology, and enlisted the medical 
world at their side. They cannot now hood¬ 
wink as they used in the u good old times.” 
That means the times of implicit obedience to 
them, and which they are constantly extolling, 
but, alas for them ! those times will never again 
return. Do not you perceive constant sarcasms 
against the March of Intellect, and the School¬ 
master abroad ? Every blunder of the illiterate, 
and every specimen of bad spelling, is now 
paraded under those heads, but neither this, nor 
any other, manoeuvre can arrest the spirit of 
vulgar inquiry. 

But what greatly, I may say effectually, 
secures us against the frightful deceptions of for¬ 
mer times is the opposition amongst the learned 
themselves. They may be divided into the Old 
and New school, and these again into two other 
classes or descriptions. The first comprises the 
worshippers of Aristotle, and those who know 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


135 


nothing of him, but who naturally follow peripa¬ 
tetic philosophy out of pure conservative instinct. 
They are, of course, much attached to high and 
?mprofound speculations, are great lovers of 
antiquity, and of old proverbs howsoever contra¬ 
dictory to each other, and would generously save 
us the trouble of thinking, by doing that for us 
themselves. The new school comprises those 
who have read or looked into Bacon, and those 
who have not, but who have caught the spirit of 
his scrutinising logic, and are prone to ask ex¬ 
planations of what seems unintelligible—a thing 
hated by the old school. Now between those 
two parties, who may be generally regarded as 
Aristotelians and Baconians in spirit, we are 
tolerably safe. For if they sometimes prevent, by 
their collisions, unanimity in a sound doctrine, 
there is no chance of that extensive and obedient 
agreement in gross error which formerly pre¬ 
vailed. The probability of discovering truth 
is now, comparatively, increased a thousand fold. 
While I admit that there are still many absurd 
notions too generally prevalent, and some of 
which I am almost tempted to mention, we are 
far better off than they in the times of our an¬ 
cestors were 

I hope that I have now relieved you from any 
unpleasant or distracting considerations that may 
have arisen in your mind, on reading my expo¬ 
sition of the entire learned world agreeing in the 
most senseless or mischievous doctrines. How¬ 
ever, for your further satisfaction, I am happy in 
giving you the high authority of Locke. That 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


3 36 


great man has clearly traced the causes of all the 
mischief done by what he very fitly designates 
“ learned ignorance.” He shows that ambition 
to rule over the multitude was the grand incen¬ 
tive, and that an appearance of superior know¬ 
ledge was the weapon—that men profoundly 
ignorant themselves overawed the mass by a 
jargon of hard words, which they called logic and 
philosophy, and that the world would have been 
almost at a stand in real knowledge but for the 
plain and unpretending. Alluding to what peri¬ 
patetic impostors called learning, he says :— 

“ This learning very little benefits society. 
For, notwithstanding these learned disputants, 
these all-knowing doctors, it was to the unscho¬ 
lastic statesman, that the governments of the 
world owed their peace, defence, and liberties ; 
and from the illiterate and contemned mechanic 
(a name of disgrace) that they received the im¬ 
provements of useful arts. Nevertheless, this ar¬ 
tificial ignorance, and learned gibberish prevailed 
mightily in these last ages, by the interest and 
artifice of those who found no easier way to that 
pitch of authority and dominion they have at¬ 
tained, than by amusing the men of business and 
ignorant with hard words, or employing the 
ingenious and idle in intricate disputes about 
unintelligible terms, and holding them perpetually 
entangled in that endless labyrinth.” 

This is but a very trifling extract, and I must 
request you to read the whole. It is in the 
Human Understanding, book 3, ch. 10, and the 
work is now easily procured. The chapter is 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


137 


entitled Abuse of Words. It throws a surpris¬ 
ingly clear light on the contrivances of those 
literary cheats who called themselves learned, 
and by which they so miserably deluded the unso¬ 
phisticated world. If you cannot go through the 
entire, let me entreat you to read from section 5 
to 17, only about eight pages, and you will gain 
most valuable information on a subject of the 
highest importance. 

As a further proof of what the learned have 
been always doing for our benefit , look well to 
the following ominous fact. It is taken from 
Locke’s life, in Woodfall’s edition of his works, 
London, printed 1768:— 

“ This work [Essay on the Human Under¬ 
standing], which has made our author’s name 
immortal, and which does honour to our country, 
gave great offence to many people at the first 
publication. It was proposed at a meeting of 
heads of houses of the University of Oxford, to 
censure and discourage the reading of it; and 
after various debates among themselves, it was 
concluded, that each head of an house should en¬ 
deavour to prevent its being read in his college. 
The reason of this is obvious ; Mr. Locke let in 
more light upon the minds of men, than was con¬ 
sistent with the dark designs of some persons.” 

What an abominable scheme this ! We hear 
a great deal about combination among artisans, 
though it is only to raise their wages, but here 
we have one of the most villanous nature ima¬ 
ginable. It was a conspiracy against the spread 
of knowledge—nothing less than high treason 


138 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


against the diffusion of light. Locke exposed 
the foul designs of “ learned ignorance,” and for 
that he was to be crushed by a vile conspiracy of 
our university teachers ! Happily this base plot 
to murder science did not succeed. Locke’s 
work made so much noise abroad that those pro¬ 
fessors, who planned its destruction, were obliged, 
by the force of public opinion, to take it in, 
and were reduced to the mortification of sending 
a mean and cringing request to the author for 
correct copies of his invaluable writings. What 
a humiliating submission to one who despised 
them ! Locke graduated in Oxford, and pub¬ 
licly declared his opinion of that “ seat of learn¬ 
ing ” thus, as recorded in Woodfall’s edition, 
“ He often said that what he had learned there 
was of little use to him, to enlighten and enlarge 
his mind.” 

But, as that occurred a long time ago, you 
will perhaps say that such things could not 
be attempted now. Grieved I am to be of a 
contrary opinion. They are attempted as far 
as is practicable—the same crusade against real 
enlightenment is still maintained. Why do our 
colleges prefer Aristotle’s trumpery logic of 
words to Bacon’s rational system of reasoning ? 
Because Aristotle’s keeps down sifting inquiry, 
while Bacon’s “ lets in more light upon the 
minds of men, than is consistent with the dark 
designs of SOME PERSONS ” 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


139 


SOME ADDITIONAL REMARKS CON¬ 
CERNING THE HEATHEN MYTHO¬ 
LOGY. 

With respect to what I have said of the hea¬ 
then mythology I must observe, that it is only 
a small part of what I had designed for a sepa¬ 
rate essay. I intended to take a general review 
of that religious system, and to prove, by undis¬ 
puted facts, that it influenced the notions, and the 
conduct, of its professors much more powerfully 
and extensively than is commonly supposed. 
Very able writers are puzzled how to account 
for some of their proceedings, when they recol¬ 
lect their high state of polish and refinement. 
Those of the Greeks, in particular, were often so 
extraordinary that they appear quite unaccount¬ 
able, and to argue a want of even common sense. 
They banished or put to death their most vir¬ 
tuous men, they rewarded vice, and they tried 
and punished their generals and magistrates for 
rendering real services to their country. On the 
other hand, they sometimes gave noble instances 
of just discrimination and a proper estimation 
of merit—so that they appear to us like a 
community of men who had only certain intervals 
of reason. 

Sometimes, perhaps when they reflected on 
the infamous character of their deities, they 
treated them with contempt—anon they became 
afraid of their vengeance, and offered them splen¬ 
did propitiatory sacrifices. Their greatest men 
were commonly suspected of “ irreverence to the 


140 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


gods,” and lived under continual apprehension 
of prosecution, for Aristotle himself was obliged, 
at the very close of his life, to fly his country pre¬ 
cipitately to avoid a process of that kind. They 
were, collectively taken, a mixture of discretion 
and folly, justice and injustice, deliberation and 
phrensy, mercy and cruelty, patriotism and ty¬ 
ranny, learning and ignorance, modesty and ar¬ 
rogance, confidence and superstition, moderation 
and intemperance, prudence and impatience, loy¬ 
alty and sedition, refinement and barbarity—in 
a word, a compound of virtue and vice such as 
seems quite incompatible with that high state of 
civilisation which forces admiration from the 
most reluctant, and which enabled a handful of 
men to maintain their liberty against the mightiest 
efforts, and to scatter armies whose mere pres¬ 
sure alone seemed sufficient to crush them. 

Now I intended to trace all these discrepan¬ 
cies to their incoherent religion, which left them 
without any fixed guide to distinguish between 
right and wrong. But, having embodied so much 
of my design in the preceding article, I must give 
up all thoughts of a separate essay on the sub¬ 
ject. I have not, however, much to regret on 
that account, as I strongly doubt my ability for 
the task. It would require the penetration and the 
learning of a Niehbuhr, and I gladly leave it open 
to others who may feel themselves adequate to 
the undertaking. But I hope that the hint may 
not be lost. Such a work would be very useful 
to correct the erroneous notions, not only of 
youth but of mature age, on a subject of great 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


141 


importance. For, while we are impressed with 
the common notion that none but the lower or¬ 
ders believed in this mythology, it is vain to think 
of reading Greek and Roman history in its true 
light. 

As a corollary, I intended to institute a 
comparison of Christianity with other faiths, 
and to show that, notwithstanding all the cala¬ 
mities and bloodshed that it has occasioned, 
it is the only consistent system of religion, and 
the only one that can lead to true morality or 
civilisation. This I intended in order to satisfy 
unbelievers, or those who think lightly of Chris¬ 
tianity. Even the devil, of which sceptics make 
the greatest handle, is perfectly consistent, and 
quite reconcileable to the most latitudinarian 
philosophy. That we should be tempted to evil 
is surely quite rational, while we are taught that 
the tempter can have no power over us, if we put 
our trust in God. Here is our moral free 
agency fully established—insomuch that the 
strongest arguments of predestinarianism are 
but a feeble opposition. Our God is all powerful, 
all justice, yet the extent of his clemency is incon¬ 
ceivable by us. Compared with this, how 
utterly contemptible is the wretched heathen 
mythology, where the half-omnipotent Jupiter, 
though dubbed “ almighty,” is constantly con¬ 
trolled or annoyed by other gods, or by his ter¬ 
magant sister-wife, and where he is represented 
as sometimes tampering with the Fates in order 
to delay predestined events ! 

Then as to Christ, I intended to show by dif- 

i 


142 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


ferent arguments, and particularly by two which 
appear to be as yet untouched, that to believe in 
his divinity can be no possible humiliation to 
reason, and that those who pretend, by its denial, 
to be the more enlightened, evince more incon¬ 
sistency and weakness of intellect than we who 
admit it to the fullest extent. Such considera¬ 
tions, however seemingly extraneous, I deemed 
necessary for elucidating the absurdity of the 
heathen mythology, and for exhibiting the folly 
of any attempt to depreciate the doctrines of 
Christianity. They are the finest code of mora¬ 
lity that can be even imagined by the most fan¬ 
ciful philosopher, and they have this strong re¬ 
commendation, that they are perfectly practica¬ 
ble. If Christian nations do not follow them it 
is, therefore, their own fault, and it only unhap¬ 
pily proves that we are more inclined towards 
evil than good—to be vicious more than to be 
virtuous. 

It is too true, that the heathen mythology has 
never been reprobated as it deserves* Our 
admiration of the Greeks has kept our reason in 
check. Do we not suspend our very senses 
when speaking of their poetry, and its chaste 
“ machinery ?” Volumes have been written on 
that said machinery, and yet, soberly examined, 
it is a thing of but little merit. No great genius 
is required where gods and goddesses, of various 
■uews and dispositions, are always at hand to 
save a hero from a deadly blow, to interpose a 
mist, or unnerve the arm of a powerful antago¬ 
nist. We have ourselves produced specimens 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


143 


of poetry more meritorious than the Iliad or 
iEneid, if we consider that we cannot use this 
accommodating- machinery, and that our lan¬ 
guage is rude compared to the refined state of 
Greek or Latin. No machine of Homer or 
Virgil has so much merit as a scene in Voltaire’s 
Mahomet. It is where Zaphna is just going to 
kill him, when he is suddenly arrested by the 
poison which the wily impostor had secretly 
administered in his food. The divine protection 
here seems quite natural. Tumult subsides into 
reverential awe, and furious enemies are instantly 
changed into servile adorers. The dying Zaphna 
himself believes that Heaven interposed, and yet 
there is nothing marvellous throughout. 

But we often read, in our classic enthusiasts, 
of “ this beautiful mythology.” Is not such 
thoughtless praise calculated to give us a wrong 
notion of it altogether ? A heap of absurdities 
despicable by their incongruities, revolting by 
their wickedness, or disgusting by their inde¬ 
cency—such a mass of deformity, I say, to be 
represented as “ beautiful !” Truly it is high 
time that our youth should be better instructed, 
than by instilling into their minds such anti- 
christian ideas which, like ghost-stories told in 
childhood, leave an impression too deep to be 
effaced in mature age. 

I find that M. Rollin examines that absurdity 
of paganism which I have treated, and the 
inconsistency of the Greeks with respect to its 
observance, and he comes to the curious conclu¬ 
sion that they had a kind of double religion ! 


144 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


He says that they were no way concerned about 
the lives or actions of their gods, which they 
freely allowed to be ridiculed. In proof of 
this he adduces Aristophanes, whose plays were 
constantly acted, and with great applause, 
though they turned those gods into mockery. 
But it was very different with respect to their 
“ oracles, augurs, offerings, and sacrifices.” 
These he says were their real religion, and any 
contempt or neglect of which they punished 
severely, even with death itself, as in the case of 
Socrates and others. It was u by this standard,” 
he says, “ that they regulated their piety,” and 
against which they would not suffer any attempt 
whatsoever, but there was another religion 
founded on fable and fictions, “ for which they 
were little concerned, and abandoned it entirely 
to the poets, to the representations of the 
theatre, and common conversation.” 

Now really this looks something like a desire 
to rescue the Greeks from the charge of religious 
absurdity. For, in speaking of their sentence 
against Socrates, he says :— 

“ From whence could so evident, so universal, 
and so determinate a contradiction arise amongst 
the Athenians ? A people abounding in other 
respects with wit, taste, and knowledge, must, 
without doubt, have had their reasons, at least 
in appearance, for a conduct so different, and 
sentiments so opposite to their general charac¬ 
ter.” 

It is after this that he goes on to explain 
their doable religion, but I would ask, why not 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


1 45 


at once refer such monstrous proceedings to the 
nature of their abominable mythology ? We 
need nothing else for a sufficient explanation. 
Could we reasonably expect any consistency 
under a system of “ piety” so vile, so revolting, 
and so detestable ? No. Rollin could have 
found a much easier mode of solving what seems 
to him a riddle. He had only to suppose a 
Christian government that allowed Christ to be 
ridiculed “ in common conversation, by the 
poets, and on the stage,” and his miracles and 
other attributes to be there held up in derision, 
while death awaited those who had not demure 
faces in church, or who did not observe the 
duties that our Saviour enjoined. Would not 
he think such a government, and such a people, 
execrable for their inconsistency ? I think he 
would, and further that he would be at no loss 
to account for any monstrous proceedings 
in their public acts or councils, for he was I 
believe a man of sound religion, as appears from 
his occasional moral reflections. But this anxiety 
to redeem the Grecian character infallibly leads 
us to absurdity, and it absolutely deprives the 
learned of clear vision. Is it to our credit that 
we admire the representation of Medea’s butchery 
of her children, or the horrid feast of Atreus? No 
doubt we should scout them were they of English 
or French origin, but, being specimens of Grecian 
“wit, taste, and knowledge,” we only evince our 
classical judgment by introducing them on our 
stage. Most of the Grecian tragedies have, indeed, 
little to recommend them but the beauty of the 
i 3 


34 6 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


language, and yet our critics lose themselves 
entirely in admiration of the story. But, to say 
nothing of an CEdipus or such characters, let 
me ask them calmly, in some interval of their 
transports, do they think, if a modern were to 
write Philoctetes, that it would be endured ? A 
man with an ulcer on his foot, emitting a fetid 
stench “ enough to knock down a horse”—poh ! 
the bare idea is disgusting, without speaking of 
the wisdom of Ulysses which is here both im¬ 
moral and contemptible. Yet the Rev. Dr. 
Manwaring, who ranks high as a critic, calls it 
“ a beautiful drama,” and praises it so highly, 
that one is inclined to think that he regarded 
it as the best of the Grecian theatrical pro¬ 
ductions. Fenelon is so enraptured with it, 
that he makes it the subject of a long episode in 
his Telemachus, but, in order to save the wisdom 
of Ulysses from contempt, he represents him as 
giving a sign to Neoptolemus to restore the 
arrow r s, while Sophocles makes him resist to 
the last. 

Let it not be imagined that I wish to throw 
the classics aside. Nothing is farther from my 
thoughts. I only desire that they should be 
read with a proper estimation of their merits and 
defects, but no one can say a word against them 
without being assailed as a barbarian. Yet, in 
the face of this malediction, I am not afraid 
to ask, is not the Odyssey, taken altogether a 
most contemptible story ? There we can fully 
estimate Grecian notions of wisdom, justice, 
clemency, and general morality. It was the 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


147 


production of Homer’s old age, when his fire 
had abated, as Longinus observes, and when he 
perhaps began to think of “ making his soul,” 
and it is, on that account, the more valuable for 
our purpose. To pass the merciless slaughter 
of the suitors, the punishment of the offending 
handmaids is shocking, and as for that of Melan- 
thus, it is revolting even to decency. It comes 
near to that for high treason formerly in Eng¬ 
land, which probably was suggested by this 
classic model. The Odyssey is, altogether, an 
outrage to our present ideas of moral conduct, 
and cannot but be injurious to youth who read 
it as a beautiful poem, describing the life of " the 
wisest of the Greeks,” by which, from the com¬ 
mentaries in praise of him, they infer the wisest 
of mankind. His conjugal fidelity is an admira¬ 
ble pattern for some modern husbands, though it 
may be right to give their wives a hint, as they 
have all heard of the chaste Penelope, but are 
generally ignorant of her worthy spouse’s doings 
in the opposite way. It is proper then to inform 
them that the sage Ulysses, when away from his 
faithful rib, freely “ went to other people,” and 
that, to comfort himself for her absence, he slept 
every night, during a whole year, with Circe, a 
much younger and handsomer woman. But he 
would kill herself, as he did her suitors, i£ he 
found that she had been unchaste. Let wives 
have an eye to this, I say, for it is the conjugal 
morality that is taught and praised throughout 
classical literature. 

The Odyssey used not to be read in college* 


148 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


on account of its epic inferiority to the Iliad. 
Yet, as if the dragging of Hector round the 
walls of Troy were not sufficient to sound the 
praise of ferocity, the Dublin University not 
long since introduced, probably in imitation of 
Oxford or Cambridge, four books of it in 
ordinary, and three for honors. This makes the 
course of classic morality complete. In the 
iEneid we have a picture of Roman piety by 
the astute and cautious Virgil, for he constantly 
calls his hero “ the pious prince.” His cavalier 
treatment of Dido after a sham marriage, his 
heroic indifference on seeing the smoke of her 
funeral pile, and his killing the suppliant Turnus 
to appease the manes of his friend Pallas, are 
“ beautiful” specimens of both piety and mercy. 
Even Horace himself, who is so madly bepraised 
by schoolmen, strongly exhibits the barbarian in 
his notions, but I cannot now stop to review his 
writings, and shall only just mention his brutal 
ode to Lyce. 

Of what the Greeks and Romans deemed 
moral and religious men, we cannot desire a 
more faithful picture than the Odyssey and 
^Eneid. Yet the heathen mythology has found 
innumerable Christian excusers or defenders, in 
pure zeal for the justification of a people who 
had carried poetry, learning, the fine arts and 
politeness, to a surprising extent. But why 
attempt to defend what was evidently bad, and 
which plainly produced the most vicious effects ? 
Cannot we admire their language, architecture, 
sculpture or patriotism, without striving to 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


14 !) 

palliate their senseless proceedings arising from 
a senseless religion ? All school or college 
classics should be illustrated by English ex¬ 
planations, pointing out the gross notions and 
absurdities of the ancients, but there seems to be 
a fear, that the young student’s admiration of 
those “ chaste models” might be diminished. It 
is, however, a very injudicious fear. At all 
events, I have done my duty in suggesting a 
counteraction to this evil, and I shall now show 
how it may be the more easily accomplished. 

Take for example Homer and Virgil. 
Instead of running notes, which distract the 
attention, let each book be preceded by what I 
would call a Moral Analysis in English, in 
which the student should be regularly examined. 
This would be very little additional labor, and, 
for its greater diffusion in education, it should 
also be required in college entrance course. 
By that means it would be spread through the 
schools, and the false notions generated in youth, 
from an unguided admiration of the ancients, 
would be chastened down to a proper estimation 
in accordance with Christianity. 

It is vain to defend what is radically bad. 
Some imprudent friends of Lord Bacon have 
striven to extenuate his private conduct, but 
I never read one of those attempts, not excepting 
even that by the shrewd Addison himself, which 
did not appear flat and unavailing. It is right, 
however, to observe, that Bacon cannot be 
accused of defending what is bad. He saw no 
beauty” in the heathen mythology, though the 


150 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


learned of his time praised it extravagantly. 
Touching on Divinity, towards the end of his 
Adv. of Learning, he says :— 

“ And therefore the heathen religion was not 
only a worship of idols, but the whole religion 
was an idol in itself, for it had no soul, that is, 
no certainty of belief or confession; as a man 
may well think, considering the chief doctors of 
their church were the poets : and the reason was, 
because the heathen gods were no jealous gods, 
but were glad to be admitted into part, as they 
had reason. Neither did they respect the 
pureness of heart, so they might have external 
honor and rites.” 

The marrow of all my arguments are summed 
up, as it were, in this concise description. I 
shall therefore conclude by once more remon¬ 
strating against our present educational system, 
as regards this anti-moral mythology. It is a 
paramount duty to consider the rising generation. 
That a change must take place is certain, but 
are we to let posterity be laughing at our 
conservative folly and superstition ? This 
debasing mythology, and classical literature in 
general, have been too long held up under false 
colors to youth—let the present age have the 
merit of undeceiving them, and not suffer future 
times to claim that honor. 


Though I am sensible of being unequal to this 
subject, I quit it with reluctance, for I have only 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


151 


just begun my investigation. But though not, 
strictly speaking, a digression, I feel that I have 
said too much on what should be a matter of 
separate discussion. Nothing calls more loudly 
for reformation—certainly nothing connected 
with literature. The story of classic lore requires 
an entirely new exposition. Without that, edu¬ 
cation must remain most lamentably defective 
and unchristian. It cannot be otherwise while 
we train up youth to admire relentless slavery 
of our fellow creature, insatiable revenge, con¬ 
temptible wisdom, revolting cruelty, parental 
unfeelingness, perverted notions of suicide, virtue 
and morality, and, to crown all, a logic opposed 
to probity or philosophical research. 

SLOW PROGRESS OF BACON S LOGIC. 

a 

This is the most painful, though a very im¬ 
portant, part of our subject. After having heard 
and read so much of the 2,000 years of mental 
slavery, you would think that, when Bacon’s 
Organon appeared, or shortly after, Aristotle’s 
syllogistic theory was laid aside. I have, how¬ 
ever, gradually prepared you for the contrary by 
various observations dispersed throughout this 
treatise, and I regret that I am now obliged to 
tell you plainly, that greater efforts than ever are 
making to throw Bacon aside ! 

And by whom are those efforts making ? By 
antiquated dunces, you will guess, whose exer¬ 
tions can signify nothing in these enlightened 
times. No, but it is by the learned ! Know then 


152 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


that the colleges of Oxford, Cambridge, Dublin,, 
and in short all our great universities, have been, 
for many years past, sedulously endeavouring to 
bring Bacon’s admirable system of induction into 
disrepute, and that they have at length thrown 
off the mask, and openly declare that it is not 
logic at all, nor in any way concerned with the 
art of reasoning. This indeed is what they have 
been doing for the last two centuries, for all 
their books of instruction on logic have either 
passed it by entirely, like those by Walker and 
others, or have mentioned it contemptuously, 
as a thing almost beneath notice. But the high 
encomiums bestowed on it by men of liberal 
minds and unquestionable erudition, in various 
publications of the first respectability, particularly 
during the last twenty years, having made a 
deep impression, the colleges, those strongholds 
of old doctrines whether right or wrong, have 
been forced to notice it, and that is by pro¬ 
nouncing it to be “ out of the province of logic.’ r 

Trinity College, Dublin, will do as well as any 
other to explain this, for it takes its tone from 
the “ mother country,” and there is not much 
difference in its general routine from the English 
and Scotch universities. In 1833, when con¬ 
siderable changes were contemplated, there was 
a kind of temporary suspension of logic, and a 
rumor prevailed that it would be no longer 
taught on the old plan, and that Bacon would 
be substituted. The next year, however, saw 
Murray’s logic brought in, with the addition of 
Whately’s—and the ancient syllogistic system, 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


153 


t,o justly condemned by the voice of truth and 
reason, is now firmly established as being the 
best for instructing the rising generation ! It is 
true that a small portion of Bacon was then, for 
the first time, admitted, but special care was 
taken to exclude even that fractional part from 
the general course—it being solely reserved for 
the few who read for Moderatorships. Yet the 
Dublin university is held to be more liberal 
than that of Cambridge, and far before Oxford, 
in point of enlarged views. 

There is no necessity to say any thing of old 
Murray. His work is, like all other college 
books on logic, completely Aristotelic, but that 
of Dr. Whately, now archbishop of Dublin, 
being one of the latest, and in great university 
estimation, is of too much importance to be 
passed without observation. His grace’s book 
consists of 392 pages, including a great deal of 
small print, and how much do you think is 
devoted to induction ? Only 6f pages ! He 
would evidently, like his predecessors, have left 
it unnoticed, only for the noise that it has latterly 
made. Read now what he says. He is 
adverting to the inaccuracy of writers on induction 
and the syllogism :— 

“ This inaccuracy seems chiefly to have 
arisen from a vagueness in the use of the word 
Induction, which is sometimes employed to 
designate the process of investigation and of 
collecting facts; sometimes the deducing of an 
inference from those facts. The former of these 
processes (viz. that of observation and ex¬ 
it 


154 OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 

periment) is undoubtedly distinct from that which 
takes place in the syllogism; but then it is not a 
process of argument; the latter again is an 
argumentative process; but then it is, like all 
other arguments, capable of being syllogistically 
expressed/' 

Observe how strenuously his grace labors to 
depreciate induction. He admits that one part 
of it is an argumentative process, and surely 
that is a wonderful admission from a college 
logician, but then, as it is “ capable of being 
syllogistically expressed,” he speaks as though 
it were hardly worth notice in comparison to the 
syllogism, with which his book is for the most 
part occupied. 

His grace says that it is a fallacy to call 
induction a distinct kind of argument from the 
syllogism, and further :— 

“ Induction, therefore, so far forth [quatenus 
—how beautifully logical!] as it is an argument , 
may, of course, be stated Syllogistically ; but so 
far forth as it is a process of inquiry with a view 
to obtain the premises of that argument, it is, of 
course, out of the province of Logic.” 

You see how industriously he works to dis¬ 
connect induction from logic, and at last he 
drives it, by clapping his shoulders manfully 
to the wheel, entirely “out of the province” 
altogether. But, after slightly adverting to the 
nature of the inductive process, he says that it is 

“ A process by which we gain, properly, new 
truths, and which is not connected with Logic ; 
being not what is strictly called Reasoning but 
Investigation .” 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


155 


Admirable ! So then a process by which we 
gain new truths has nothing to do with logic ! 
Would you now think that Dr. Whately was 
really serious, or would not you rather imagine 
that he had made an unlucky slip in his warmth 
against induction ? Why this is an entirely new 
description of logic. All our peripatetics used 
to admit, and even Dr. Watts, whose Aristo- 
telianism it would be cruel to doubt, admits 
logic to be “ the pursuit and acquisition of 
truth,” but, as new truth is not mentioned, there 
may be a great difference between old and new 
truths in the estimation of Dr. Whately. We 
have it, however, very particularly asserted by 
him, that logic has nothing to do with the 
gaining of new truths. Does he mean that 
induction discovers new truths, and logic old lost 
ones ? We can hardly suppose that, for it 
would be making almost a caricature of logic. 
Does he mean then, that logic has nothing to do 
with the discovery of truth ? That is what he 
means, for he inveighs against the common 
error in calling logic a means for the discovery 
of truth, and he takes no small pains to represent 
it as only a process of argument. Now that is 
reducing it to a very humble rank, since it then 
becomes nothing more than a weapon with 
which, by skilful management, you may defeat 
an adversary, or at least give him no ’vantage 
ground. By this he pays the highest possible 
compliment to induction, though we are certainly 
under no obligation to him for it—any one can 
see that it came out in his excessive veneration 
for the syllogism. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


150 

Logic, that is syllogistic logic, is then, 
according even to Dr. Whately, only an ar¬ 
gumentative, or otherwise a disputative, process, 
while induction is one that discovers truth. 
Consider that well. Logic will enable you to 
conduct an argument, but it does not pretend to 
discover truth—if you aspire to that, you must 
have recourse to induction. Think well on that 
also, for I assure you that it is very important, 
coming as it does through Dr. Whately. But 
then he says, that induction is “ not what is 
strictly called Reasoning but Investigation.” 
He thus teaches that induction, which he admits 
develops truth, is not reasoning, i. e. that 
reasoning is not necessary for its development, 
or, to prevent any cavilling about words, for 
its discovery. Did you ever think before, that 
the discovery of truth was so simple as to 
require no reasoning ? Philosophers have been, 
since the earliest ages of literature, striving to 
discover it, and so difficult did this appear that 
many, in complete despair, made up their minds 
that there was no snch thing. What pity that 
they did not know induction ! But college 
logicians will tell us that it was always known. 
Why so it was, just as the syllogism was known 
before Aristotle, though he claims, and very 
justly, the invention, since it was lying nearly 
useless, like iron in the mine, till he developed 
its use. In the same manner, induction was 
unknown, with reference to its value, till Bacon 
unfolded its great powers, and showed it to be 
the only engine, save chance alone, capable of 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


157 


dislodging truth from concealment. The at¬ 
tempts to depreciate induction, by covertly 
robbing Bacon of its invention, are contemptible 
—they exhibit only a disposition, not a power, 
to inflict wanton injury. Aristotle might be 
more fairly deprived of the syllogism, for it was 
actually used by other logicians before he 
published his celebrated analysis, but would not 
one evince great folly in decrying it on the 
grounds that it was not Aristotle’s invention ? 

But Dr. Whately’s assertion calls for still a 
more strict examination. He says that in¬ 
duction will discover truth, though it is not 
reasoning. Now a regular process that seeks, 
from the beginning, to discover* some truth, and 
that ultimately succeeds, must include reasoning, 
for induction is not the accumulation of facts and 
instances, throwing of them into a heap, and 
then saying, “ there ! contradict them if you can.” 
It requires a great exercise of both the reason 
and judgment. Simple as it appears, it cannot 
be used effectively without following Bacon’s 
rules implicitly, and they are sufficiently exten¬ 
sive to demand a profound and laborious study. 

Dr. Whately’s description of induction seems 
to be, upon the whole, fairly entitled to be called 
a paradox. But suppose we take it in its strict 
meaning, that induction is no use in argument— 
even there no one need be afraid to meet him. 
He has told us too plainly to be mistaken, that 
induction has no chance in contention with a 
syllogistic opponent, where argument is con¬ 
cerned, and I think that he will himself admit, 


158 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


that this is the sum and substance of his 
inculcations on the subject. A common ex¬ 
ample, for I can give no other, must serve for a 
trial. There are some bible-mad folk who 
insist, that the whole sacred volume should be 
put into the hands of every child who can read, 
without the least restriction as to any part for 
perusal, and, when others object to that, they 
assail them with “ Is it not the word of God ?” 
and “ Can you deny that it is all the word of 
God?” Being answered with a Yes and No, 
they then cry “ Can the word of God teach any 
thing improper?” Having got their answer 
No, they then come down with their ergo “ it 
should be read Joy all who can read.” Now I 
will suppose fhose questions to be arranged in 
due syllogistic form, with unimpeachable premises 
and conclusion, and what would they avail 
against simple induction ? Nothing—I distinctly 
repeat nothing. What! Are we to be frighted 
out of our reason and common sense by a 
paltry trap, just as Lucian makes Chrysippus 
say to the merchant, “ take care that I do not 
shoot you with a syllogism ?” No surely. I 
would readily admit the premises, and the 
conclusion too if arranged, which it might be, 
without the word all , and yet still I should not 
be convinced. Here is my refutation, or, as 
lord Bacon calls it, redargution :— 

There are many passages in the Old 
Testament highly improper for children of either 
sex to read. I shall not allude to them, for 
that would be to needlessly wound delicacy. 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


lo9 


since they are already well known, and it is 
sufficient to say that they chiefly occur in the 
books of Moses. As I do not wish to hurt any 
one’s feelings unnecessarily, I was going to 
recall the word “ improper and to substitute 
useless or uninstructive , but I now find that I 
cannot. Children are always curious. It is 
quite natural that they should be so, when reason 
is only budding. When they meet certain 
words or sentences that they cannot understand, 
they ask for an explanation, which any father or 
mother would blush to give. Is it proper or 
improper to put such passages into their hands ? 
They are first told that the Bible is the word of 
God, and that it can contain nothing but what is 
good, yet, when they ask for an elucidation of 
some parts, parents are under the necessity of 
either giving them a false version, or checking 
them for impertinent curiosity, which is virtually 
telling them that it is not proper for them to 
know the meaning. 

Every one admits that the jews have been 
always singularly exact with respect to the Old 
Testament So tenacious were they of its 
purity, and so anxious to preserve the text 
from any the slightest corruption or innovation, 
that they counted not only the words but the 
letters composing the entire. This would argue 
that they regarded the minutest portion as of the 
highest importance, yet there were some parts 
which they would not allow of being read by any 
of the male sex before thirty, and by females 
never. Jews may be no examples for 


<IGO 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


Christians, but we may, in some instance', draw 
instruction from even pagans, which is constantly 
done by our first writers when speaking of the 
ancient Greeks and Romans. 

For conciseness’ sake, I hasard this little de¬ 
fence, as a sample of an inductive, or, if it please 
better, an investigative, answer to the syllo- 
gist, though I might further strengthen it by nu¬ 
merous arguments, facts and instances. What can 
his little catches avail against plain reasoning? 
Does he think that, because I admit his general 
positions, I am necessarily obliged to yield up 
mine ? Nothing appears to me better calculated 
to show the contemptibleness, and, I am forced 
to add, the dishonesty, or, perhaps more 
appropriately expressed, the treachery, of his 
weapon. He allures me into certain admissions, 
and then he glories in his achievement, like him 
who basely inveigles another into a bubble bet. 
But he has, in reality, no victory, except in the 
eyes of his wretched brother tacticians. All 
honest men, who should hear us both, would 
pronounce him to be defeated. 

The influence and power of universities are 
prodigious. We may say that they have, in a 
general sense, the education of the respectable 
male population either directly in their hands, 
or under their control. All our schools, except 
those confined to plain English instruction, are 
regulated by them, because they must follow 
what is called the “ entrance course,” otherwise 
they would lose their business. No master can, 
therefore, prudently teach a different doctrine 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


161 


from what is sanctioned in college, and hence 
the logic that is taught in schools must be 
the same. Here you see ample cause for the 
slow progress of Bacon’s logic. 

I recollect reading in Chambers’ Journal, that 
encyclopaedias take twenty years to decide on 
an obvious improvement, and colleges fifty. 
But there are some cases where the latter 
require whole centuries, e. g. Bacon’s logic. It 
is a common saying, that learned bodies move 
slowly, and I believe that they are almost every 
where the same. The French academicians 
took upwards of half a century to decide on 
Voltaire’s a for o —the greatest improvement 
that was ever made in the orthography of any 
language. They did not make up their minds 
on its safely till 1820, when they were at length 
laughed into consent by finding themselves 
standing alone, for nearly all France besides had 
adopted the new spelling even in the previous 
century. There is indeed, generally, a most 
ridiculous fear of any thing like literary inno¬ 
vation , which I think is traceable to university 
conservatism. Even sensible men fear to 
advocate what tardy colleges do not sanction, 
and I hope that I may be allowed to give an 
instance wherein I am myself concerned. I was 
the first to notice, in my work on Composition 
and Punctuation, the absurd custom of mixing 
up I and J, and U and V, in our dictionaries. 
What can be more ridiculous ? Every one 
hates to look for any word under those letters, 
because they are so puzzlingly jumbled together, 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


1(52 

and yet, though every one desires their 
separation, our lexicographers are still afraid. 
Afraid of what? Why of conveniencing all 
their readers ! Only a few have ventured to 
adopt my suggestion, which has given great 
satisfaction, and I have no doubt that it will yet 
be universally followed, though not probably till 
the present generation has passed away—unless 
indeed that the colleges should sanction it, and 
then all fear would quickly vanish. 

But you will naturally ask, why do all those 
learned men, who write logical treatises, 
advocate the syllogistic theory ? Because they 
all write with a view to their adoption by the 
colleges, for they are read no where else. If 
the author be a man in humble or middling 
circumstances, that is a fortune to him, and, for 
one to whom any profit on the sale of his book 
would not be an object, there is that great 
incentive fame. There can hardly be a higher 
gratification to a literary man, than to have his 
work entered in a college course. It must be 
felt to be conceived, and it has sometimes 
induced men to write against their own prin¬ 
ciples and conviction. Indeed it has sometimes 
affected the reason—an instance of which I 
could mention, but I suppress any account 
because it might give pain to the friends of the 
individual. 

You may ask too, why so few eminent authors 
have written against the syllogistic theory. 
The reason for this is twofold—they regard it as 
hopeless on account of the public apathy on such 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


163 


occasions, and they do not choose “ to attract a 
swarm of hornets about their ears.” No great 
writer ever yet exposed the inanity of syllogistic 
reasoning without being tormented by its buzzing 
defenders. Great writers have always an 
extensive acquaintance with the heads of 
colleges, who are all professed Aristotelians, 
and they do not like to offend them, which they 
undoubtedly would if they wrote against what 
is taught by them. They content themselves, 
therefore, by secretly despising it, and following 
Bacon in reality as their guide. Few have the 
courage to encounter this hostility like a Locke, 
a Kaims, a Campbell or a Stewart, and fewer 
still have the manliness of Dr. Reid, who, 
though an ardent admirer of Aristotle, exhibited 
a rare example of integrity by combating his 
own prejudices. But let the colleges once 
declare for Bacon, and we should then be 
astonished at the number of able writers who 
would break through their spectatorml silence, 
openly proclaim their sentiments, and denounce 
syllogistic logic as a waste of time, a grave 
delusion, an empirical farce, an impudent cheat, 
a literary bugbear—in one word a humbug. 

' Yes we should then be astonished, and so 
would Dr. Whately himself, at the number of 
able opponents of syllogistic logic. Convenient 
opportunity alone is wanted. Nor can our 
really great men bear the thoughts of teaching 
this degrading and equivocative system, as we 
see in the instance of Dr. Adam Smith, author 
of the celebrated Wealth of Nations. In 1751 


164 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC, 


he was elected Professor of Logic, in the 
university of Glasgow, and the year following 
he was removed to the professorship of Moral 
Philosophy, in which situation he continued 
thirteen years. But why was he removed ? 
Because he could not bring himself, in justice to 
reason, to teach a system that distorted 
reasoning. This is plainly seen in the following, 
which was written by one of his pupils, and 
which Dugald Stewart gives verbatim in his 
life of Smith— 

“ In the professorship of logic, to which Mr. 
Smith was appointed on his first introduction 
into this university, he soon saw the necessity of 
departing widely from the plan that had been 
followed by his predecessors, and of directing 
the attention of his pupils to studies of a more 
interesting and useful nature than the logic and 
metaphysics of the schools. Accordingly, after 
exhibiting a general view of the powers of the 
mind, and explaining so much of the ancient 
logic as was requisite to gratify curiosity with 
respect to an artificial method of reasoning, 
which had once occupied the universal attention 
of the learned, he dedicated all the rest of his 
time to the delivery of a system of rhetoric and 
belles lettres. ,, 

Here we see plainly the cause of his quick 
removal from the chair of logic. It was not for 
want of the requisite knowledge, for he had 
studied the ancient logic deeply, and metaphysics 
too, as is shown in his writings on those subjects. 
The fact is that, as an honest man, he would 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


165 


not teach such a mind-debasing thing as syllo¬ 
gistic logic, and accordingly he was removed 
to make way for those of a more pliant and 
unscrupulous spirit. 

It is proper here to remark, that Dr. Smith 
was a philosopher of very enlarged understanding. 
He wrote several works, evincing a profound 
acquaintance with classic literature, and his 
Wealth of Nations has been translated into all 
modern languages. Although the first, it is still 
the best, treatise on Political Economy, though 
subsequent writers on the subject endeavonr 
to depreciate him, by industriously pointing outj 
some errors into which he was led, more through 
want of instances to aid him than of judgment. 
Time having furnished those proofs, they affect 
to despise their great master, and yet, though 
they have the assistance of sixty years’ additional 
experience, and which, particularly the last five 
and twenty or thirty, include the most enter¬ 
prising commercial periods ever known, their 
speculations are, for the most part, either 
visionary or too hasardous for practice. They 
seem to forget entirely that there are very few, 
perhaps not more than half a dozen, fixed 
principles in political economy—that the peculiar 
circumstances of a country and its people call for 
different views—that what would suit one nation 
will not another, and that, even in the same 
country, what would be highly beneficial at one 
time must be extremely hurtful at another period, 
according as she advances or retrogrades in 
power or influence. But they are blinded by 


166 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


the ambition of being philosophers, and they 
scorn at any thing but generalization. They 
aim at showing their amazing profundity by 
laying down rules applicable to all, and they 
and their books go regularly down together into 
the common gulph of oblivion. 

Ido maintain what I said elsewhere, to which 
I cannot now conveniently refer, that the syllo¬ 
gism is far inferior, as an argumentative engine, 
to induction, and further, that it is inferior as a 
process of reasoning, even fully admitting Dr. 
Whately’s distinction between “reason” and 
“ reasoning.” It is incumbent on me to be very 
plain, for every one must confess that his grace 
is remarkably candid. In that respect he differs 
widely from his predecessors who, in many in¬ 
stances, seem to imitate the obscurity of their great 
peripatetic master, but Dr. Whately is every 
where clear, intelligible and decided, and never 
uses ambiguous words or phrases, from which 
two meanings might be drawn, but boldly 
declares his sentiments in perspicuous language. 
I say then, that the syllogism is an indifferent 
process of reasoning compared to induction, 
which he describes as being only investigation. 
It appears to me, however, that he is somewhat 
too metaphysical in his description of logic. If 
it do not pretend to discover truth, may we not 
ask, of what use is it in reasoning? Any 
process of reasoning, describe it as we may, has 
for its object the detection of error, and that is 
virtually the development of truth. What ig 
an attempt “ to obtain the premises of an argu- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


167 

ment” but an attempt to discover whether they 
are, or are not, fallacious ? though he will not 
allow it to have any pretensions to discovery 
neither. In short, every inquiring process 
must, inevitably, have truth for its object, for 
even the mechanical process of common arith¬ 
metic seeks to find the true amount, or required 
distinctions, of multifarions quantities. 

The less complicated any system is, so much 
the better, and for this reason I am rather 
unwilling to separate induction from inves¬ 
tigation. Yet there seems to be a difference 
that deserves notice. An argument, syllo- 
gistically based, might be overturned by pure 
investigation alone, i. e., without bringing 
forward a single fact or instance, But that is 
only as the case may be, for facts and instances 
will be sometimes indispensable. Here it is 
that the syllogist has an advantage. When 
they are necessary, and when time will not 
allow us to supply them, he may maintain an 
absurd doctrine, with the most plausible 
appearance of victory. Appearance indeed, 
for what sort of victory is it ? Nothing more 
than the triumph of chicanery. Your syllogist 
is a no-exception man, who rests pertinaciously 
on his dogmas till they are scattered by the 
searching process of induction. For, as far as 
my observation has gone, I never knew a 
syllogist to defeat, in argument, any one who 
came properly prepared to meet him by induction. 

I do contend that the syllogism is an 
unmanly weapon. Admitting that we have a 


168 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


knavish opponent, are we to oppose him by 
knavery ? Lawyers well know, and we all 
know, that a dishonest witness will “ break 
down" on an able cross-examination, and what 
is that but a process of combined investigation 
and induction? We must certainly agree with 
Dr. Whately when he asserts that logic, by 
which he implies the syllogistic theory, is not a 
method for the discovery of truth. 

You may now begin to perceive why Bacon’s 
logic has been retarded. It is too plain. No 
show, no ornaments, no gaudy trappings. It is 
downright reasoning—a real exercise of the 
understanding. Only think how learned two 
gentlemen appear when discussing, whether a 
syllogism is in th e figure of Barbara or Cesare, 
or whether again it may not belong to the mode 
Ce'larent or Festino. Why it is enough to 
“ dazzle the crowd, and set them all agape/' 
When we, simple folk, hear them, we are awed 
into respectful admiration, and we think that 
they are initiated into profound mysteries which 
demand superior intellect to comprehend. Can 
you wonder, when you consider the extent of 
human vanity, that they fear the being placed 
on a level with us, and that they consequently 
hate induction, because we can at least under¬ 
stand what it means ? While, on the contrary, 
college logic is so hard to be understood, that 
only a few choice spirits ever become adepts in 
its mysterious secrets. Of this Dr. Whately 
himself bears testimony* Speaking of Oxford he 
says:— 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


169 

u The truth is, that a very small proportion, 
even of distinguished students, ever become 
proficients in Logic ; and that by far the greater 
part pass through the University without knowing 
any thing at all of the subject. I do not mean 
that they have not learned by rote a string of 
technical terms; but that they understand ab¬ 
solutely nothing of the principles of the Science.” 

What a farce then is this logic ! There are 
generally say about 4000 students at Oxford, 
and there must be, amongst so many, a number 
of bright youths. Every one of them learns 
logic, and yet all, but a mere fraction, complete 
their studies “ without knowing any thing at all 
of the subject.” And this is exactly the case 
at all our other universities. 

But notwithstanding this formidable hostility, 
for it is useless to deny that it is formidable, 1 
have great pleasure in acquainting you that 
Bacon’s logic is silently making way, and that 
the day seems not far distant when, in spite of 
university opposition, all sensible and really 
learned men will be ashamed to advocate the 
delusive, and worse than all, the dishonest , sys¬ 
tem of Aristotle. There has evidently been 
alarm in the camp for some years past. What 
else produced Dr. Whately’s novel declaration, 
that logic did not pretend to discover truth? 
The fact is, that people were constantly asking 
w r hat it did, and nothing could be shown, while 
the “ amazing success ” of the Baconian method 
is such that, to point out its results, would be, 
as is observed in the Library of Useful Know¬ 
ledge, u to give nothing less than the history of 


170 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


science for the last two hundred years.” To 
silence such impertinent inquiries Dr. Whately, 
therefore, makes the curious discover}'’, that all 
his brother logicians have been wrong in repre¬ 
senting the syllogistic theory as a method for 
finding out truth Do not you see the important 
object of this ? It was to put down those 
annoying inquiries by announcing, that logic 
was only a process of reasoning, but that, as I 
have already explained, is a very poor answer* 
and will not prevent further inquiries concerning 
the utility of this truth-disclaiming process. 
Beyond a doubt, its use appears no where but 
in treatises on its use ! Its very advocates make 
no use of it now when discussing other matters, 
and as for the sciences it has been long since 
discarded from them—experience having amply 
proved that it wofully retarded their advance¬ 
ment. 

This theory of uselessness is manifestly touch¬ 
ing on its last days. We may consider the 
confession of having nothing to do with truth as 
its expiring speech, though no doubt it will, 
like the “ nine-lived” cat, struggle long for 
existence. Dr. Whately laments that several 
experiments tried at Oxford have not contributed 
towards its resuscitation. Amongst these was, 
the requiring of its study to be indispensable 
for testimonials or a sort of inferior honors, but 
that did nothing. For the professors found that, 
if they proceeded to real examinations, testimo¬ 
nials would indeed be rarities. You will probably 
stare at this word real , for I suppose that you. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


171 


like others who do not trouble themselves much 
about what colleges are doings believe that all 
their examinations are real. I must, therefore, 
let you into a secret. You must know then, 
that there is a particular exception with regard 
to logic. For that, the examinations are only 
pro forma , or a matter of form. The student 
answers only according to what he happens to 
recollect, and even where his answers are all 
wrong, or where he gives none at all, this does 
not in any way affect his advancement. In the 
other sciences, or in classics, if he do not answer 
correctly, he “ loses his examination” as it is 
called, which is not only a great mortification 
but a disgrace. He is thus put three or four 
months back, and, if he be not well prepared 
at the next trial, he is again remanded, and so 
on till he answer satisfactorily. But experience 
proved, that strict examinations in syllogistic 
mysteries would dispeople the colleges, and the 
farce of fictitious ones was, of necessity, per¬ 
mitted. 

Another experiment was, to encourage the 
voluntary study of this hateful logic. By a 
statute of 1830, candidates for testimonials 
were allowed their choice of “ substituting logic 
for a portion of Euclid.” This appeared to be 
most flattering. In 1831, twenty-five presented 
for Euclid, and one hundred for logic ! The 
worthy directors of Oxford were in transports of 
joy, but alas ! their triumph was short-lived. It 
was found that the candidates preferred logic, 
because that was only a getting-off-by-heart 


172 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 



affair, whereas Euclid required serious study. 
The professors thought that they might, in this 
case, exact real examinations, as the adoption 
of logic was left optional, but they found that 
it would be imprudent, though Dr. Whately 
seems to think that nothing else will revive this 
half dead science. 

Parents may see here how the college time of 
their sons, for which they pay so dearly, is 
wasted. They are all obliged to study, or rather 
to read, logic, which consumes many months 
uselessly, and, as if that were not bad enough, 
those who aspire to testimonials are now per¬ 
mitted to chuse between Euclid and this bubble. 
Such are college improvements! Is not this 
highly reprehensible ? Mathematics are univer¬ 
sally acknowledged to be of the greatest utility, 
and yet this phantom of logic that eludes the 
grasp, and flits away like an ignis fatuus, 
gets greater encouragement! Again, I remind 
parents, whose sons have the laudable ambition 
to obtain university rank, not to overlook those 
considerations. 

Pro forma examinations are injurious to edu¬ 
cation, and should be left to their proper sphere, 
the nobility. Perhaps you do not know that a 
nobleman’s son, who is styled in college a jilius 
nolilis, is entitled to pass his examinations as a 
matter of course. The origin of this was pro¬ 
bably, that it would be degrading to the order 
if a peer could not say that he graduated in a 
university, and therefore every Alius nobilis can, 
after the usual four years, demand his degree 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


173 


of B. A. as a tiling of right, whether he merit 
it or not. Some of them turn out, notwith¬ 
standing, to be excellent scholars, for I believe 
that their fathers can, if they please, insist on 
real examinations. But this does not at all 
concern us, and I therefore proceed to what 
does, which is logic. Suppose that our colleges 
should determine on bona fide examinations in 
it, what would be the consequences? Why that 
instead of four years, five, six or seven would 
be requisite. Or the young men would be so 
harrassed that their health must suffer. Or the 
strictness of examination in their other studies 
must be lessened. Or they would be so dis¬ 
gusted that they would lose a relish altogether 
for study, and learn little or nothing. Some 
persons can never be brought to know the differ¬ 
ence between youths and children. A child 
may be forced to learn reading, writing, and 
even common arithmetic, but it is futile to think 
of forcing young men to learn what they detest, 
what they feel that they can never understand, 
and what they are satisfied, if they did under¬ 
stand, could be no accession of knowledge. 

I much regret to see Dr. Whately strongly 
inclined to the forcing plan. He says that logic 
would rise in estimation, and be studied with 
real profit, if it were made “ optional to those 
who are merely candidates for a degree, but 
indispensable for the attainment of honors.’’ 
The examination might then, he thinks, be a 
strict one, without any reasonable objection. 
Indeed ! Why what is it that leads to scholar- 


174 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


ships, moderatorships, professorships, fellowships, 
and all other distinctions, but the voluntary as¬ 
piration to honors ? It is that which causes a 
noble emulation, and is confessedly one of the 
wisest devices for the encouragement of study, 
or the advancement of education. But, if the 
Whatelyan bar be thrown across the path to 
honors, we shall find few who wall aim at them, 
for their attainment is already sufficiently diffi¬ 
cult, and any additional obstacle would operate 
as almost a prohibition. I must inform you that 
honors are far before testimonials, which are 
only like an acknowledgment of superior an¬ 
swering in the usual prescribed course, whereas 
honors are given for the voluntary prosecution 
of extra studies. They are, therefore, a great 
incentive to learning, and it would be both un¬ 
wise and cruel to put any impediment in the way 
of such a laudable source of emulation. 

Wherever this clog on the understanding has 
been rejected, there we invariably see the good 
effects. Astronomers were the first to embrace 
Bacon’s system, and their success was commen¬ 
surate. Every one admits that Newton followed 
it strictly, and his successors have adhered to 
the same course. Some deviations have indeed 
occurred, and they have led to the fanciful and 
to aerial castle-building, for it is a certain result 
of an Aristotelian propensity, to engender a 
dislike towards sound reasoning or solid research. 
Chemists took up Bacon much later than astron¬ 
omers, but they made ample amends by the 
unexampled rapidity of their progress. Botany, 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


175 


geology, mineralogy, pneumatics, physics, and 
all the sciences, have advanced proportionably, 
and have lost the marvellous character, and even 
metaphysics are gradually becoming less imagi¬ 
native, and more consonant to reason. Some 
how or other, though Bacon is not much read 
or studied, his doctrine has made a general im¬ 
pression, and many men now, who never threw 
atvay an hour on syllogisms, argue most pro¬ 
foundly and logically too, though that would ap¬ 
pear almost impossible to peripatetic enthusaists. 

The only science that antiquity has transmitted 
to us undebased is the mathematics. Happily 
thie syllogistic theory was found inapplicable to 
them, and they remained free from those wretched 
conceits, and those puerile speculations, that 
so degraded the other sciences. This fact is 
universally admitted, and can you have a stronger 
proof of the cankering tendency of that logic 
which is so lauded by Dr. Whately ? 

Is it not cheering to see even a little bit of 
Bacon allowed into our u venerable seats of 
learning ?” Half a dozen years ago Bacon 
durst not appear inside the hallowed walls, but 
now a small portion is admitted. How strikingly 
that shows the force of public opinion ! It was 
found absolutely impossible any longer to resist 
the clamor outside. To be sure Whately’s 
Mithridate is given as a kind of antidote to the 
poison of Bacon, but, even so, the students 
will now know that there is such a thing as 
induction, whether college wisdom allows it to 
be logic or not, and that same is something. 


176 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


There is now a bona fide overwhelming majority 
for it. By this I mean when we include those 
who, for reasons already stated, say nothing 
against the syllogistic theory. 

THOUGHTS ON A NEW SYSTEM OF 
LOGIC. 

What I mean by a new system is only a new 
arrangement. It seems futile to attempt any 
novelty in logic. Having at last, after a search 
of prodigious length, lighted on what appears 
to be the only rational method, there we must 
rest. 

But, while men have been for ages striving 
to explain a theory more injurious by far than 
useful, no one has yet illustrated Bacon ! This 
is. the chief thing necessary, and whoever does 
it first will earn great honor for himself, and 
render an important service to the world. We 
can hardly blame the author for leaving that to 
others. Nothing is so disheartening as to know 
that we are writing for remote generations, and 
I think we should rather wonder, how Lord 
Bacon had the courage to be so minute in his 
details. His Organon will not, however, be 
studied as it deserves till it be digested by ex¬ 
amples. I find that Dr. Reid has considered 
this with his usual fairness and judgment:— 

“ Most arts have been reduced to rules, after 
they had been brought to a considerable degree 
of perfection by the natural sagacity of artists ; 
and the rules have been drawn from the best 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


177 


examples of the art that had been before ex¬ 
hibited : but the art of philosophical induction 
was delineated by Lord Bacon in a very ample 
manner, before the world had seen any tolerable 
examples of it.” 

Those remarks are strikingly impartial, and 
make us see the value of Bacon in a new light. 
But he continues :— 

(< This, though it adds greatly to the merit of 
the author, must have produced some obscurity 
in the work, and a defect of proper examples 
for illustration. This defect may now be easily 
supplied from those authors who, in their philo¬ 
sophical disquisitions, have most strictly pursued 
the path pointed out in the Novum Organum.” 

Yes, it may indeed be easily supplied, but, 
though Dr. Reid wrote that about seventy years 
ago, no one has yet done it, while the syllogistic 
bubble has had scores of expounders and editors 
in that time. 

He who undertakes this great desideratum, 
and I know of nothing in literature more wanted, 
need give himself no uneasiness about the extent 
of his work. It must necessarily be too bulky 
for the purpose of ordinary tuition, but then it 
will serve as a great store or magazine, whence 
he or others may draw materials for school books 
or minor compendiums, while it will itself be a 
treasury of knowledge for the studious, who 
wish to explore the genuine sources of reasoning 
and information. There is no use in concealing- 

O 

that it would be a most laborious undertaking— 
so laborious, indeed, that we could hardly ex- 
L 


178 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


pect one individual to attempt its completion. 
But how could the united labors of the learned 
be more nobly employed ? Can we imagine 
any work superior to that of teaching the rising 
generation to detect or avoid false systems—to 
argue on sound principles—to seek truth with 
humility yet with a becoming confidence, and to 
discipline our reason by purging the mind of those 
prejudices that impair or darken the judgment ? 

But, besides induction, the Idols must be 
illustrated by examples. They are the founda¬ 
tions—the very comer stones, of logic. Without 
them it is useless to lay out any system of rea¬ 
soning—certainly no honest system can be inde¬ 
pendent of them. Dr. Reid at once saw their 
great worth, and, though engaged specially 
upon Aristotle, he says:— 

“ I think Lord Bacon was also the first who 
endeavoured to reduce to a system the prejudices 
or biasses of the mind, whichare the causes of 
false judgment, and which he calls the idols of 
the human understanding. Some late writers 
of logic have very properly introduced this into 
their system ; but it deserves to be more copi¬ 
ously handled, and to be illustrated by real 
examples.” 

The opinion of a Reid, who so nobly con¬ 
quered his own prejudices, is surely entitled to 
the highest respect. Yet what are we to think 
of Dr. Whately’s sapience, in taking no notice 
whatsoever of the idols ? 1 have looked through 
his book for the purpose, and I think that I am 
not mistaken in saying, that he has not once 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


3 79 


mentioned them. Is this commendable in a 
Christian clergyman, when instructing youth in 
the art of reasoning ? 

It may not be amiss to say something about 
“ real” examples. Illustration does not require 
that they should be real, for supposed or invented 
ones will answer as well, and Dr. Reid probably 
thought so too. Bnt, if he did mean the word 
in its strict sense, it shows the value of the 
Baconian system very forcibly, when he thought 
that instances enough could be “ easily” collected 
in his own time, and there is certainly a vast 
addition since both for induction and the idols. 

My first design was, to confine myself to the 
idols and induction, and to recommend their 
substitution for the syllogistic theory, I intended 
not to meddle with any departments of prepara¬ 
tory initiation, and to leave them open for any 
one to draw as he pleased from Aristotle. But, 
on considering Bacon more attentively, I feel 
that he contains nearly every thing necessary to 
form a logician. What need is there for a pro¬ 
longed dissertation on definitions, if we study 
his “ further remarks preparatory to the induc¬ 
tive method,” which embrace the substance of 
definition, especially if some additions were 
. made which time and circumstances may have 
rendered necessary ? There is surely no occa¬ 
sion for an appalling exhibition of ideas, sub¬ 
stances, categories, propositions, and other things 
equally embarrassing to the young student, when 
the First Part of the Novum Organon is, from 
beginning to end, a series of plain rules for the 


180 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


rectification of our thoughts, our words, our 
notions, our powers, our judgments, and in short 
for all the operations of the mind. Indeed Dr. 
Whately himself complains, that a great deal 
of irrelevant matters are brought into logical 
treatises, and he accordingly, after a few pre¬ 
liminaries, goes suddenly into the syllogism. 
But that is perhaps only stepping from one ex¬ 
treme to another. Both the syllogistic and 
inductive theories seem to require some initiatory 
preparation. Definition is surely necessary, for 
Bacon himself, -who thought very little about the 
schoolmen’s rules, when speaking of it says, 
“ For it cometh to pass, for want of this, that 
we are sure to end there where we ought to have 
begun, which is in questions and differences 
about words.” Jldv. of Learning , Book 2. 

To illustrate Bacon properly, he must be 
re-written. No great system can be composed 
in what we may call a teachable order. That 
must be the work of others, whose minds are 
not weighed dowu by the pressure of respon¬ 
sibility and invention. Besides there is, in the 
present case, a particular consideration of 
another nature. Bacon is now one of our old 
authors, and upwards of two centuries would go 
near to antiquate any spoken tongue, but, along 
with that, he had a most reprehensible fancy for 
“ uncouth phraselogy” and comparisons beneath 
his genius, and he appears to have little taste 
altogether in either his English or Latin con¬ 
struction of expression. His language was 
thus, even in his own day, if not old-fashioned, 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


181 


what is Vulgarly called queer , and the necessity 
for a general remodelling is obvious. It is 
curious how some great geniuses are tormented 
by this fancied inadequacy of present language. 
Spencer was so fond of old words that his Fairy 
Queen is almost as hard to be read as Chaucer, 
and Lord Byron was so enamoured of them, 
that he sends us constantly to Bailey’s dictionary. 
But the most remarkable instance is Jeremy 
Bentham. That profound logician, for surely 
there never was one if he is to be excluded from 
the list, had no paltry desire for singularity of 
expression, but he imagined our modern English 
insufficient for the precision of his views, and 
felt himself forced to coin some of the most 
barbarous and unpronounceable words ever 
fabricated by man. Nay, even with this aid, he 
was sometimes absolutely driven to French for 

the utterance of his conceptions-but what an 

unwarrantable digression am not I making! 
Lest it might, however, be supposed as an 
apology for Bacon, I must now say, that I 
regard his harsh style as not only inexcusable 
but reproachful to his learning. I have been 
sometimes inclined to look on this foible as a 
kind of superstition, in the case of great men, 
for conceited pedants are not worth notice. A 
man of genius should particularly avoid fancying, 
that ordinary language will not express his 
sentiments, for he will soon come to believe it 
in reality—-just as harmless bushes have been 
often at night transformed into restless ghosts. 

Not being a logician, I must not obtrude any 

T ° 

h W 



182 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


more about the illustration of Bacon, though I 
could wish to offer some further hints. I shall, 
however, strengthen my proposal by some other 
quotations from Dr. Reid :— 

“ Although the art of categorical syllogism is 
better fitted for scholastic litigation, than for 
real improvement in knowledge, it is a venerable 
piece of antiquity, and a great effort of human 
genius. We admire the pyramids of Egypt, 
and the wall of China, though useless burdens. 
upon the earth.” 

When this is all that can be urged for the 
syllogistic theory, and that by an admirer of its 
founder, I ask should not we hasten, even at the 
eleventh hour, to illustrate Bacon ? Here now 
is another reason :— 

“ After men had labored in the search of 
truth near two thousand years, Lord Bacon 
proposed the method of induction, as a more 
effectual engine for that purpose. His Novum 
Organum gave a new turn to the thoughts and 
labors of the inquisitive, more remarkable, and 
more useful, than that which the Organum of 
Aristotle had given before; and may be con¬ 
sidered as a second grand sera in the progress 
of human reason.” 

Pray observe the words “more useful.” 
Pseudo-philosophers may, in the arrogance of 
pragmatic conceit, smile at utility, while every 
one else believes, that anything more useful 
than another is to be preferred. The following 
is a further reference to the utility of induction:— 

“ The art of syllogism produced numberless 


OLD AXD NEW LOGIC. 


183 


disputes, and numberless sects, who fought 
against each other with much animosity, 
without gaming or losing ground ; but did 
nothing considerable for the benefit of human 
life. The art of induction, first delineated by 
Lord Bacon, produced numberless laboratories 
and observatories, in which Nature has been 
put to the question by thousands of experiments, 
and forced to confess many of her secrets, which 
before were hid from mortals. And by these 
arts have been improved, and human knowledge 
wonderfully increased.’’ 

Oh ! but all that is nothing in the estimation 
of a Whately. Induction is only investigation, 
not “ a process of reasoning,” and our youth 
are therefore to be instructed in the syllogistic 
art which teaches them how to dispute “ without 
gaining or losing ground.” To benefit human 
life is only a vulgar consideration, and to 
improve human knowledge has no concern with 
his logic. 

The following comes, however, more home to 
Dr. Whately’s particular views :— 

“ In reasoning by syllogism, from general 
principles we descend to a conclusion virtually 
contained in them. The process of induction is 
more arduous ; being an ascent from particular 
premises to a general conclusion. The evidence 
of such general conclusions is not demonstrative 
but probable: but when the induction is 
sufficiently copious, and carried on according to 
the rules of art, it forces conviction no less than 
demonstration itself does.” 


184 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC, 


After this, are we to pin our faith to Dr. 
Whately’s sleeve, and to believe with him, that 
induction is no process of reasoning ? Why 
what is reasoning at all if it be not what is here 
described ? He may enigmatise about in¬ 
duction not obtaining the premises of an 
argument, but, if it “ force conviction,” it is 
something very like logic, though he would keep 
it outside the pale, ft is quite futile any longer 
to trifle about the universal applicability of 
induction. There is no department of logic 
which it cannot meet, and it can, besides, 
discover truth which, according to Dr. Whately, 
syllogistic logic cannot, or at least does not. 

Alluding to induction, which distinguishes 
first principles taken for granted, from pro¬ 
positions that require proof, and to the necessity 
of separating them by a distinct line. Dr. Reid 
says:— 

“ This has been done in mathematics from 
the beginning, and has tended greatly to the 
emolument of that science. It has lately been 
done in natural philosophy • and by this means 
that science has advanced more in an hundred 
and fifty years, than it had done before in two 
thousand. Every science is in an unformed 
state until its first principles are ascertained : 
after that is done, it advances regularly, and 
secures the ground it has gained.” 

Is not this great encouragement to prosecute 
the study of induction, in preference to that 
of the syllogistic stalkinghorse, or, as Lord 
Kalins calls it, “ the enchanted castle of syllo* 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


185 


gism, where empty phantoms pass for realities?” 
But Dr. Reid has summed up, as it were, the 
inestimable character of Bacon’s system in the 
following, when speaking generally of the 
Novum Organon :— 

“ Those who understand it, and enter into 
the spirit of it, will be able to distinguish the 
chaff from the v'heat in philosophical disquisitions 
into the works of God. They will learn to hold 
in due contempt all hypotheses and theories, the 
creatures of human imagination, and to respect 
nothing but facts sufficiently vouched, or con¬ 
clusions drawn from them by a fair and chaste 
interpretation of nature.” 

This is cheering encouragement for the 
illustration of Bacon. From this we learn that 
his Organon developes the means, or process , of 
obtaining all the knowledge that is of any value, 
and of separating delusion from attainable 
information. There can be little doubt that 
such a work as I propose would pay for the 
labor bestowed. Its sale must daily increase, 
for the public mind is now fully prepared to 
throw r off, in good earnest, the fetters of 
Aristotle. The very colleges seem w r eary of a 
useless opposition to general opinion. They 
have, in fact, offered terms of capitulation by 
admitting a scrap of Bacon, and we can plainly 
perceive that, were he presented in a regularly 
teachable form, they feel that they must 
surrender unconditionally. It is evident that 
they wish to compromise. There are some 
"signs of the times” that cannot be mistaken. 


386 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


One of them is the Whatelyan discoveries that 
induction is not reasoning,, and that it is out 
of the province of logic, and another is that, 
which may be called 44 a sop in the pan,” of 
allowing Bacon to come at all within the gates. 
Time was when he would be fired at, even 
though he came with a flag of truce. Dr. 
Whately complains, that the Scotch colleges 
have admitted part of his Organon into their 
courses, which he seems to regard as an in¬ 
consistent mixture with the syllogistic theory, 
but he will, ere long, have the same complaint 
to make against his dear Oxford, and Cambridge 
too. Dublin, as I have already observed, has 
followed the Scotch example, and admits one 
book of the Augm. Scient., with the prefaces to 
the Inst. Mag. and Nov. Org., but this is, 
however, only for Moderatorships, and entirely 
out of the general course. We may here 
wonder that Bacon’s Latin is permitted, when 
we have his original English, at least in the 
Augmentis Scientiarum, for surely such Latin is 
no better than 44 monkish/’ against which our 
college folk have such an antipathy. 

Having fallen in, perhaps unfairly, with the 
general censure of Bacon’s 44 uncouth phraseo¬ 
logy” justice requires me to observe, that it 
chiefly appears in his philosophical works. His 
New Atlantis is even an excellent specimen of 
the narrative style. It is easy, smooth and 
flowing, and, making due allowances for the use 
and acceptation of some words or phrases that 
time or fashion has condemned, it has a certaiu 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


387 


aiir of simplicity and freedom that is peculiarly 
pleasing and attractive. 

As I have mentioned the Atlantis,- I cannot 
forbear to notice that it is there stated, under 
cover of a fiction, that America was anciently 
the seat of a lettered and scientific people. 
Lord Bacon, who looked backwards and for¬ 
wards with equal penetration, felt convinced 
of this, and promulgated his opinion though 
unsupported by a single adherent. All the 
learned believed that writing and literature were 
confined to the old world, and that the Mexicans 
and Peruvians had no progenitors more advanced 
than themselves. This belief continued till the 
other day, when the remains of a city were 
discovered furnishing indisputable proofs of 
Bacons conclusions, yet his name is not men¬ 
tioned, as far as I know, in any account or 
review of that most important discovery ! Such 
is the fate of a man whose lightest works teem 
with matter for the philosopher, but our wise 
men now, so far from appreciating his transcen- 
dant merit, are striving to throw him into the 
shade before he is half known or read. 

THE BACONIAN AND ARISTOTELIAN 
SYSTEMS CONSIDERED IN RESPECT 
TO THEIR CONSEQUENCES. 

It is admitted, that hardly any one who gra¬ 
duates in college understands logic, though all 
there are obliged to learn it as a matter of course. 
What a stupid imposition this, and what a prof- 


.188 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


ligate waste of time ! But we will suppose the 
Baconian system substituted, and that it were 
found equally difficult. What then ? Some 
trace or other generally remains on the memory, 
and here the balance is undoubtedly in favor of 
Bacon. An imperfect recollection of syllogistic 
logic does great injury. It makes a young man 
petulant, headstrong, and averse to sober 
reasoning—insomuch that those who forget it 
in toto have a decided advantage. Now, in the 
other case, the consequences are essentially 
different. What though our student forget the 
entire routine, he is at least taught humility, and 
that no impression can be made by overweening 
confidence. He may forget the whole list of 
prejudices completely, but this much will remain, 
that the object of the idols is, to divest ourselves 
of all prejudices before we enter on any in¬ 
tellectual investigation. Of induction, he will 
recollect, that it is a mode of inquiry by a 
dispassionate and industrious examination, and 
which requires us to hear and consider, without 
impatience, opinions opposed to our own. 
Which of the two systems, the Baconian or the 
Aristotelian, should parents wish their sons to be 
taught ? 

Syllogistic logic, viewed in every possible 
way, appears to be something worse than useless. 
It never yet made a good reasoner, for, when 
it was used by the learned, their disquisitions had 
generally an air of flightiness, and they rarely 
arrived at any solid conclusions. Those who 
know it now do not use it in their writings or 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


189 


otherwise, and a little knowledge of it is 
extremely pernicious. The Baconian logic is, 
on the contrary, every way useful. It is the 
grand engine for investigating the sciences, and 
for beating down the petty wiles of syllogistic 
quibbling, while the most trifling knowledge 
of it has this merit, that it lays a foundation 
for unexceptionable morality. We may assert, 
without any straining at amplification, that it 
does some part of the business of the clergyman 
and the pulpit. 

Parents would not let their sons be taught 
Aristotelian logic, if they were sufficiently aware 
of its demoralising tendency. The question is 
simply, would they have them modest, be¬ 
comingly diffident, and not full of what the 
French call opiniatrete ? If they would, let 
them learn the Baconian logic in its stead. I 
hope to see the day when they will generally 
insist on this, for that would indeed lay the axe 
to the root, and prostrate the old peripatetic 
prejudices of our universities. 

The Baconian system is Christian logic, for it 
accords with the amiable spirit of Christianity— 
that of Aristotle is pagan logic, and is in keeping 
with the character qf paganism. I state this 
without any concern about what some, who 
believe themselves to be excessively liberal, 
may think proper to say. Let them not say, 
however, that I blame the Greeks for not having 
been Christians. How could they be Christians 
before Christ appeared ? No, but I blame 
them, as men highly civilised, for not attempting 
M 


190 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


some improvement, some melioration, of that 
mythology which was their religion. That they 
could have done, but it would not appear to 
suit their views. We may see their notions 
of wisdom in the vaunted Ulysses, who was 
distinguished for mendacity and craftiness—to 
say nothing of his being an adulterer and 
debauchee, for those seemed to be almost indis¬ 
pensable requisites to a place among their 
divinities. Could we reasonably expect any 
logical system, except one based on stratagem, 
to be a favorite among a people having such 
ideas of wisdom ? I boldly assert, that syllo¬ 
gistic logic is not only inconsistent with, but 
disgraceful to, Christianity. It suited paganism 
well, but let those who now advocate it consider, 
whether they are not, however unconsciously, 
supporting pagan morality. They ought to put 
the Spartan Boy as a frontispiece to their 
treatises, in order that our youth should be 
continually reminded of the admirable Grecian 
precept, that thieving is a virtue, provided it be 
managed so as to elude discovery. To render 
it still more impressive, it might be made up 
into a very instructive syllogism. 

Again I call on parents, who profess 
Christianity, to look to their sons. I tell them 
that they have no excuse, for they have every 
thing in their own power. They have only 
to require that their sons be taught the Baconian, 
not syllogistic, logic. Let them not be under 
any apprehensions of a refusal. College direc¬ 
tors will not “ fall out with their bread and 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


191 


butter.” However enamoured they may be of 
Aristotle, they are not incurably smitten—they 
will stifle their passion, and will admit, like 
Shakespear’s Richard, that they are “ not made 
of stone,” sooner than diminish the students 
by whom they live. 

COMPLETION OF BACON. 

It is well known that Lord Bacon was unable 
to complete his grand design, as regards philo¬ 
sophy. This he foresaw and declared himself, 
but he continued, notwithstanding, to work at it 
till death called him away. It was to establish 
a system of philosophy on the severe and chaste 
principles of experimental research, and he 
labored at this herculean undertaking with a 
vigor and earnestness, considering his disgraces 
and bad health, that must ever be a subject 
of admiration. Fortunately he has left his 
whole plan so completely laid out, and the 
materials for construction so ample in his 
Prodromi, or fifth part of the Instauration, that 
the completion is now quite practicable. It was 
intended as a means for erecting the sixth and 
last part, called Philosophia Secunda, sive 
Scientia Activa, of which he had only put up 
the scaffolding. 

Yet no attempt has been made to finish this 
magnificent and supereminently useful structure! 
Is it that intellectual capacity cannot be found, 
or that Aristotle’s frippery is more attractive ? 
As it would be painful to inquire about the 


192 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


causes, I shall content myself by exhorting the 
learned to turn their thoughts towards this very 
important object. True it is a vast undertaking, 
for many additions must now be made, but let 
them recollect, that one man would have com¬ 
pleted it, as far as knowledge then permitted, if 
death had spared him a few years longer, and 
that he left the plan and the materials ready. I 
do not say this with any view to diminish their 
merit, but, on the contrary, to encourage them. 
Bacon is like a Homer or Milton, which cen¬ 
turies on centuries are required to produce, and 
the noblest work in which the learned could en¬ 
gage, would be the completion of that which 
death alone prevented him from accomplishing. 

Speaking on this subject, a writer of his life, 
who was probably Dr. Birch, says:— 

“ The learned of all countries from his 
[Bacon’s] days have been only laboring some 
separate or lesser parts of this amazing edifice, 
which ages to come may not see finished 
according to the model left them by this one 
man.” 

Now I earnestly call on England to rescue 
herself from this reproach to her intellect) her 
judgment, and her understanding. What a 
disgrace if Germany or France should be the 
first to finish that which her own philosopher 
planned! She has not yet illustrated even his 
inductive system. Her universities are busied 
in the silly task of, I make no blunder as Dr. 
Whately testifies, teaching aii unteachable logic, 
whilst the mightiest genius that ever illumined 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


193 


science, and whom her own soil produced, lies 
neglected, and sheds his light in vain on stultified 
Aristotelianism! 


I find that the Rev. W. Whewell, in the 
preface to his History of the Inductive Sciences, 
feebly adverts to the completion of Bacon. 
Feebly I say because, in such a work, he should 
have spoken out most emphatically and de¬ 
cidedly on what concerned science, and his own 
general subject, so very materially. But we 
need not wonder at this, when he says hardly 
any thing about logic, though it was that which 
retarded and debased the inductive sciences, 
and kept them so long the sport of whimsical 
speculation. An unsound method of reasoning 
was the cause of so much folly in philosophy, 
and he ought to have exhibited the source of 
all that folly. I am very proud, however, to 
have so distinguished a name as Whewell on 
my side for the completion of Bacon. 

BACON AND ARISTOTLE COMPARED. 

No persons are better fitted for comparison 
than those two great philosophers. One ruled 
over the mental faculties for twenty centuries, 
and the dominion of Bacon will, in all likelihood, 
be as lasting as the world itself. For we can 
hardly suppose printing to be ever extirpated, 
and, while there is any literature, he must be 
the guide of reasoning and science. 



194 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


But a regular comparison is beyond my 
ability. That would require talents and learn¬ 
ing which I do not possess, and I must therefore 
premise, that I mean to take only a cursory 
view of the general value of their respective 
writings. 

I shall begin with their Organons, as they 
are my principal concern. Aristotle is here 
greatly praised for his inventive genius, yet 
surely the categories are a most important part 
of his structure, and they are not his production. 
This is admitted even by Dr. Whately who 
says, without any reserve, that they were 
invented by Archytas. Take them away from 
Aristotle, and his great system of logic would 
be very naked, and then again there are the 
predicables, which it is said, though I think 
without good proofs, belong to Porphyry. 
The syllogism itself was wielded by other 
logicians before Aristotle, so that he has not 
the merit of its first introduction to the art of 
reasoning, and it is well known that sophisms 
were used long before his time. In point of 
invention he has not, therefore, such mighty 
claims as his encomiasts allege, especially if we 
consider what a great deal of knowledge he 
must have drawn from his amiable and un¬ 
assuming master. 

As an inventer, Bacon has infinitely more 
merit. We may fairly say, that he invented 
induction as a logical engine. What was 
known before was worse than total ignorance, 
for it was, as himself truly observes, “ utterly 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


195 


vicious and incompetent.” It sought to invent, 
not to seek, the principles of sciences, which 
was a sad misuse of intellect, and as different 
from his induction as light is from darkness. 
The similitude is a very common one, though 
here of singular aptitude, for his was light itself, 
while the other was truly a melancholy darkness 
—a fit companion for the syllogistic theory. 

Then, as to the Idols, they are solely and 
entirely Bacon’s. This is the opinion of Dr. 
Reid, from whom I have already given a quo¬ 
tation to that effect. If there be any thing new 
they are, for no one else ever thought of such a 
foundation for logic, and it certainly is the only 
true one for any system of reasoning, or of 
intellectual inquiry. I am far from considering 
invention as a test of superiority, for greater 
genius may be required in perfecting or im¬ 
proving what has been already sketched out, 
but, if there be a question on the merit of 
invention, I think that Bacon must bear away 
the palm. As to the utility of the two 
Organons, I may be allowed to say, that the 
good sense of the world has decided against 
Aristotle. 

But much is said of Aristotle’s other works, 
and of the mighty genius, and versatility of 
talents, that he there evinced. I have no wish 
to Underrate his merit, but I should suppose 
that a philosopher prides himself most on his 
ontology and physics, and those of Aristotle are 
replete with errors, chiefly arising from pre¬ 
sumption, and a total contempt of humility. 


196 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


His zoology, considering that he was the first 
who treated the study regularly, is a valuable 
work, and his judgment in rhetoric and poetry 
is generally admitted. As he was a pagan, it 
might be unfair to speak of his ethics, but I 
believe that his politics are much inferior to 
some modern treatises on government. He 
wrote on several other subjects too, for Gillies 
tells us that he left 400 treatises, of which 
we have only 48, though Dr. Browne says, 
in his Classical Dictionary, “Almost all his 
writings, which are composed on a variety of 
subjects, are extant/’ We have, however, 
sufficient whereby to judge of his abilities, and 
certainly Bacon need not fear to stand in com¬ 
petition. It is comparatively easy to speculate 
or moralise. At least it comes easy to a man 
of genius, but to be constantly pointing out new 
sources of knowledge is, in fact, to be constantly 
making new discoveries, and requires vastly 
superior abilities. Now Bacon’s principal works 
are all of that description, and they evince such 
powerful resources of mind, and such amazingly 
varied information, that Aristotle seems little 
indeed when placed by his side. 

We must also take into account that, owing 
to the influence of Aristotle’s pernicious logic 
and erroneous philosophy, Bacon found the 
sciences and general knowledge in a state of 
infancy, or at most of adolescence. He had 
literally to set up as their schoolmaster, and 
to undertake their education. In this gigantic 
scheme, it may be said that he left nothing 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


197 


untouched. From the most abstruse studies, 
he did not disdain to investigate the lowest— 
even husbandry down to a compost or manure ! 
His capacious intellect penetrated into every 
thing that concerns life or society—he ascended 
and descended with equal facility. In such a 
prodigious . range, is it any wonder that he 
should sometimes appear weak or trifling ? 
Yet some occasional observations of little or 
no value, in the midst of ten thousand im¬ 
portant suggestions, have called forth petty 
sneers, though such failures should redound 
to his praise. He had no paltry anxiety about 
fame, and, when any thing occurred which he 
thought might tend to the improvement of an 
art or study, however slight his acquaintance 
with it, he gave the hint, regardless of whether 
he exposed his own ignorance or not. I think 
that it forcibly shows his magnanimity, and his 
ardent desire to be useful, even at the risk of 
that which is so dear to us all, reputation. 

How different this picture from that of Aris¬ 
totle ! That conceited philosopher, whose 
distinguishing feature was vanity, tells nothing in 
an artless way, for he is as well supplied with 
cloaks as Horace’s Lucullus. Dr. Reid, alluding 
to his presumption in “ determining things above 
all human knowledge,” says :— 

“ Rather than confess his ignorance, he hides 
it under hard words and ambiguous expressions, 
of which his interpreters can make what pleases 
them.” 

Read that ye silly peripatetics, who rave 
M 2 


198 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


about the omniscience of your idol! There he 
is plainly charged with ignorance, and that in 
addition to all his dogmatical errors. Whatever 
ye may say of me, ye cannot affect to think 
lightly of Dr. Reid, for he knew his author well, 
and could properly estimate his merits and 
demerits. But indeed he could not, as a man of 
impartiality, speak otherwise. He found Aris¬ 
totle constantly assuming his mere opinions as 
facts, for he does so even in his zoology, and is 
not that ignorance ? If he were always, or 
even mostly, right, it would certainly show his 
acumen, but he is oftener wrong. His ignorance 
ns of the most unpardonable description, for he 
presumed to know more than he did know. 
Here his vanity overpowered what good sense 
he possessed, and that is perhaps the worst kind 
of ignorance, especially when attempted to be 
disguised by ambiguous and mysterious lan¬ 
guage. It is true that ignorance is defined as a 
want of knowledge, and that he had a large 
share of varied information, but I fear that his 
greatest admirers must admit that he was not 
honest as a writer, and a certain degree of 
ignorance is inseparable from such dishonesty. 

What a contrast does Bacon exhibit! He 
disarms his enemies by his modesty, while 
Aristotle disgusts his very friends by his iC pride, 
vanity, and envy.” The English philosopher 
throws open his vast stores of knowledge, 
without any ostentation, and offers them as 
merely a collection of hints or suggestions, 
insomuch that he is frequently forgotten as being 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


199 


the original inventer or discoverer. Take for 
an instance the following :— 

“ In preparation of medicines, I do find 
strange, especially considering how mineral 
medicines have been extolled, and that they are 
safer for the outward than inward parts, that no 
man hath sought to make an imitation by art of 
natural baths, and medicinable fountains; which 
nevertheless are confessed to receive their virtues 
from minerals ; and not so only, but discerned 
and distinguished from what particular mineral 
they receive tincture, as sulphur, vitriol, steel or 
the like ; which nature, if it may be reduced to 
composition of art, both the variety of them 
will be increased, and the temper of them will 
be more commanded.” 

Now you can fairly judge of Bacon’s unos¬ 
tentatious mode. There is the discovery of 
Medicated Baths, announced without any parade 
whatsoever. Indeed so far from any pride, he 
labors to despatch it in a protracted single sen¬ 
tence, as though it were not worth a second. 
What a rout would not others make about such 
a thought! Why they would contrive to occupy 
an entire volume in its development, but with 
him it was only as a grain of sand out of a heap. 
His modesty in thus merely suggesting has caused 
him to be overlooked in several instances. We 
have medicated baths every where now, and I 
verily believe that not one of their proprietors 
know that they are indebted to Bacon for the 
discovery. Of this I can give nearly a proof. 
Sir Arthur Clarke, a learned member of the 


200 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


Faculty, and author of some valuable medical 
publications, has an excellent establishment of 
that kind in Dublin, where one may have any 
of the spas of England or the Continent, and 
of a stronger quality if required—and yet in a 
treatise on artificial mineral waters, wherein 
their origin and progress are traced, he does not 
mention the name of Bacon. Now as he is a 
writer of more than ordinary research and eru¬ 
dition, and who is besides well versed in both 
the practice and history of chemistry, I. need 
not go further to show how little is known of 
our immortal philosopher, though we have all 
grown wiser by his labors. When he thus escapes 
Sir Arthur, I may almost presume that no other 
■writer, on a similar subject, has assigned him 
the discovery. 

Yet upwards of two centuries have not ex¬ 
hausted Bacon's rich treasury of knowledge, for 
many important hints lie there still unheeded. 
He is in good truth only spoken of—not read. 
Those who chance to look into him, flippantly 
turn away in disdain, when they stumble on 
some things now well known to every one, with¬ 
out ever recollecting that it was he who made 
them trite. I do think that one might work on 
a valuable hint out of Bacon, and take credit 
for the originality, without any fear of detection! 

This great man knew well how undeserving 
his own country was of his philosophical labors, 
and for which reason he caused what he wrote 
in English to be translated into Latin, in order 
to the diffusion of his immortal works on the 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


201 


continent. He reserved, however, the expres¬ 
sion of his displeasure for his last will, which 
has these remarkable words, “ My name and 
memory I leave to foreign nations; and to mine 
own countrymen, after some time be passed 
over.” What a prophetic spirit! It is indeed 
a disgrace to England that he should be so ne¬ 
glected, and that a pagan and “ perrhvig-pated” 
logic should still be taught in our colleges, instead 
of his Christian and rational system. There is 
a saying on the continent, even among the com¬ 
mon people, “ as learned as Bacon,” which 
proves how early his merit was there estimated, 
while here one must be of some reading to have 
heard of him at all. There, every one knows 
at least that there was a very learned man called 
Bacon—here, we have our hundred thousands, 
perhaps millions, who know not that such a 
person ever existed. 

Of ignorance, such as that charged to Aris¬ 
totle, Bacon cannot be accused, though he 
sometimes evinces weakness. I of course allude 
only to what are properly his philosophical works, 
and this must be taken also in a very particular 
sense. For instance, in the Advancement of 
Learning, his base flattery of James must be 
left out, as having nothing to do with our pre¬ 
sent considerations. He was strictly honest only 
in his scientific inquiries—we can place little 
dependence on him in other respects. As a 
philosopher, he was singular in his zeal for 
truth—as a man, he was too much biassed by 
self-interest to have a proper regard for integrity. 


202 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


Keeping this distinction in view, we shall no 
where find so much learning and knowledge 
with so little alloy. The “ trifling matter’' 
occasionally found in his works, and which is 
much dwelt on by those who would depreciate 
him, calls for no remark beyond what I have 
already observed, that it redounds more to his 
praise than his discredit. But some go further, 
and accuse him of sometimes assuming hypo¬ 
theses as facts, “ in violation of his own rules.” 
Now suppose, though no instances are given, 
that we admit the charge, will they say that he 
lays them down as positive or unerring princi¬ 
ples, after the fashion of Aristotle ? I think 
not. Here lies a great difference between the 
two philosophers. Bacon assumes no magiste¬ 
rial air. His very errors are instructive, because, 
where he does not enter into a proper scrutiny, 
he submits himself in a manner to our examina¬ 
tion, and does not dictatorially insist. Besides, 
he showed us a certain method of detecting his 
own errors, as for instance his opposition to the 
Copemican system, while Aristotle, by his 
dogmatical assumptions, filled the world with 
visionaries, and left them no mode of relief, 
because he blocked up the road to truth by a 
formidable army of categories and syllogisms. 
I know of only one instance where Bacon 
approaches to that ignorance of which Aristotle 
is so often guilty, and that is in his Christian 
Paradoxes. He begins by showing that, in 
Christianity, we must believe in things that are 
incomprehensible to our reason. That is very 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


203 


proper, for, if we reject all mysteries, away 
goes the Christian religion at once, but, as he 
proceeds, he becomes more and more paradoxi¬ 
cal , till at last he leaves his Christian a fair 
subject for pity or scorn. Here he conceived 
more than he had ability to delineate, for he no 
where appears to be irreligious, and, if he were, 
he was not the man to proclaim what would 
injure him with his patrons. He ought to have 
torn that fatal paper, for God knows he had 
frailties enough without needlessly exposing 
himself to the additional charge of deism, or at 
least of ridiculing Christianity—of which I think 
we may safely pronounce him to be completely 
innocent. 

In summing up the merits of our two philo¬ 
sophers, there appears an astounding difference. 
Let us call on the admirers of Aristotle to re¬ 
count his services. Perhaps they will say that 
he has given us good rules for the stage, which 
by the bye we do not follow—that he has fur¬ 
nished the principles of rhetoric, and written 
very learnedly on poetry, and has left us a his¬ 
tory of philosophy, and the zoography of his 
own times. Very well. But let them now put 
in the balance the injuries he has inflicted. He 
kept the noble study of astronomy degraded for 
eighteen centuries, as shown in page 75, where 
I beg that 1543 may be read for 1500—he 
debased men’s understanding by a false philoso¬ 
phy, and kept the sciences stationary by a per¬ 
fidious logic, during the long period of almost 
twenty centuries. I do not like such strong 


204 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


words, but I cannot help calling that logic per¬ 
fidious which, as ample experience has confirmed, 
is inimical to the integrity of reasoning, and to 
morality itself. 

Bacon’s services are so numerous that it would 
be vain to attempt a recapitulation. We must, 
therefore, take only a kind of general view. 
Whatever advancement the sciences have made, 
for the last two hundred years, belongs to him. 
He first showed the true method to study them, 
and the proof of its efficacy is their rapid pro¬ 
gress, notwithstanding the opposition of univer¬ 
sities. To him we are also indebted for a more 
rational turn to metaphysics, by showing that 
syllogistic pageantry led only to chimerical pur¬ 
suits, such as those in which Aristotle’s followers 
were so uselessly engaged. Along with these 
inappreciable benefits, we are not to forget his 
actual discoveries, nor his direct suggestions for 
the improvement of particular branches of sci¬ 
ence. He liberated the human faculties from a 
disgraceful slavery, and, by furnishing a better 
logic than the delusive syllogism, he opened the 
road to a real, instead of a deceptious, process 
of argument. 

Then, as to injuries, he inflicted NONE. 
He was the friend of well-regulated freedom, 
and the enemy of licentious excursions into the 
regions of intellectual inquiry. The world never 
produced a philosopher who had less of the 
dictatorial or dogmatic spirit. It is astonishing 
how he could keep such stupendous intellect 
under so complete a subjection. We feel no 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


205 


humiliation in acknowledging, as our master, 
him who first knocked off our fetters, and then 
assumed no other authority than to warn us of 
those errors that lead to an abuse of our liberty. 
He is the safest guide that ever appeared, both 
in rule and practice, for the exercise of our 
reasoning faculties—his own example itself 
being a perpetual admonition against self-conceit, 
prejudice, or hasty judgment. 

The friends of Aristotle find it difficult to 
defend him, while the enemies of Bacon are 
always puzzled how to turn us against his 
doctrines. In Rees’ Cyclopaedia, under the 
article Aristotle, which is altogether rather 
favorable to that philosopher, there is the follow¬ 
ing as a kind of summary or general estimate:— 

“ Upon the whole, it has been observed by 
competent and candid judges, that the philosophy 
of Aristotle is rather the philosophy of words 
than of things, and that the study of his writings 
tends more to perplex the understanding with 
subtile distinctions than to enlighten it with real 
knowledge.” 

The article Bacon, in Dr. Brewster’s Edin¬ 
burgh Encyclopaedia, is evidently penned in a 
spirit of hostility to that great man, chiefly I think 
on account of his unfortunate character. Though 
that should never influence any one against his 
ifnmortal genius, I am willing to take it here as 
some excuse for prejudicial feelings, and yet after 
all what do we find ? General but not specific 
charges. The writer labors to show that his 
merit is overrated, because men’s minds had 


206 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


Joeen previously prepared “ to cast off the yoke 
of authority,” and “ to revolt from the dogmas 
of Aristotle.” But after several general accu¬ 
sations, without producing even one solitary 
instance, he says :— 

“ With all these faults, and others on which 
it might seem invidious to dwell, Bacon must 
be allowed the merit of having bequeathed to 
the world a larger and more precious mass of 
sound logical instructions, deduced from his own 
reflections, than are to be found in the writings 
of all the authors who preceded him.” 

Look now at the two summaries—“ on 
this picture, and upon that.” Bring forward 
Aristotle’s friends and Bacon’s enemies. Hear 
what they have to say respectively, and Bacon 
will be found to outweigh Aristotle as an ele¬ 
phant to an ass. 

THE LONDON UNIVERSITY. 

Ultra conservatism is bad enough in politics, 
but it is exceedingly stupid in literature. I have 
no objection to^even a large portion of caution, 
because it is necessary to keep rash innovators 
in check, but, when it extends to a fear of any 
change, it defeats its own object, and converts 
moderate reformers into ultra radicals, who 
generally succeed in carrying more than they 
originally contemplated. Ultra conservatism is 
the parent of narrow principles and confined 
views, and those who profess it, however other¬ 
wise learned, can hardly be supposed to have 
an enlarged understanding. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


207 


Our colleges are renowned for this doctrine. 
They see danger in every change, and would 
tremble at any in the students’ caps or gowns. 
Occasionally, indeed, they substitute one Greek 
or Roman classic for another, which they regard 
as a great concession to the hateful spirit of 
novelty, but, in science, they are filled with 
“ saucy doubts and fears,” and with admiration 
of the Medes and Persians whose laws were 
never to be altered. As they are, to a certain 
extent, under government control, they are con¬ 
sequently, to a certain extent, not free, and it 
was all those considerations that gave rise to the 
London University, which was to be wholly 
uninfluenced and independent, and at full liberty 
to adopt the most enlightened plan of instruction. 

Now I would ask its managers what they 
are doing about logic. Have they rejected 
Aristotle’s system, and caused Bacon’s to be 
digested into a teachable form ? They profess 
not to interfere with religion, which I think is 
very proper, but every one expects that they 
should inculcate sound morality. Aristotle’s 
logic is opposed to honesty and fair dealing. 
It is the logic of gamesters or triflers, and is 
consequently injurious to morals. Bacon’s logic 
is, from its nature, in hostility to quibbling or 
petty advantages. It is the logic of integrity 
and candor, and conduces to lay a foundation 
for good morality, whatsoever may be our reli¬ 
gion. Let parents look to this, who send their 
sons to the London University, in expectation 
of an improved course of education. 


208 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


I know not what sort of logic is taught there, 
but I am quite sure that it is a matter of great 
consequence in education. Whatever kind we 
learn in youth, though we may completely forget 
the entire routine or management, leaves a cer¬ 
tain impression, and its influence is afterwards 
felt according as it is an artful and captious, or 
an honest and investigative, system. The Lon¬ 
don University is a perfectly free and unshackled 
institution. It has no old prejudices to combat, 
and is at full liberty to adopt, what the public 
have been led to expect, a liberal and enlight¬ 
ened course. If it teach peripatetic logic, it 
departs from the spirit of its original professions, 
but I should hope that it requires only a hint 
to do what is right. 

At all our colleges, the fellows or teachers 
And time to write learned works, and I submit 
to those of the London University to take Bacon 
into their serious consideration. Let them first 
illustrate his inductive system, and then proceed 
to the completion of his grand philosophical 
scheme. Their leisure could not be more nobly 
or more usefully employed. It would confer 
literary immortality on themselves, and render 
their establishment celebrated throughout the 
civilised world. 


CONCLUSION. 

In taking my leave I will not conceal, that I 
depend a great deal on the ladies for that 
reformation which I so strenuously advocate. 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


209 


They are allowed to be, generally, much more 
religious than men, and, when they see plainly 
the demoralising tendency of syllogistic logic, 
they will, no doubt, exert their powerful 
influence against it, and support the Baconian 
method. Hitherto they have been completely 
excluded from logic as a science utterly above 
their comprehension, for even Madame de 
Stael, who was a man in literature, contented 
herself with the examination of philosophical 
systems, but I flatter myself that I have ren¬ 
dered its constitution universally intelligible, 
and that they will now venture to interfere, 
at least where the education of their sons is 
in question. I have a strong hope too, that 
they will materially contribute towards reforming 
the mode of teaching the classics. From my 
sketch of the plan pursued, though much more 
concise than I could wish, they will see the 
necessity of some change, for they cannot but 
perceive that morality is there also deeply 
involved. It is surely right to ask their aid 
when men pertinaciously combine to disseminate 
ignorance and profligacy—and it would be a 
curious and triumphal epoch in female history, 
if the ladies achieved the victory of correcting 
those vicious systems of universities, which I 
think I have shown to be anti-christian. 

I am fully aware that the knowledge- 
retarders will laugh heartily at my appealing 
to the sex, but perhaps they will not have to 
laugh so long as they may think. Barefaced as 
they are, they dare not defend irreligion, and 


210 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


well they know that female power is here 
anything but contemptible. With Christian 
and Knowledge in their mouths, and Pagan 
and Ignorance in their hearts, they have too 
long imposed on “the lords of the creation”— 
we shall now see whether the women can be so 
easily cajoled. I have shown that syllogistic 
logic is suitable only to that absurd heathenism 
whence it sprang, and that the mode of classic 
instruction is repugnant to Christian notions, and 
sure I am, now that an unhallowed combination 
is fairly exposed, that no educated lady will 
hesitate to oppose an organised system of 
demoralisation and intellectual debasement. 

Not having the vanity to think that what 
I say should have a convincing effect, I request 
the ladies to keep a steady eye on the authorities 
that I have quoted against syllogistic mummery^ 
The names of Bacon and Locke, two of the 
most enlightened philosophers that any age or 
country ever produced, would be alone sufficient 
to condemn such a burlesque on reasoning, for 
who will have the presumption to say that he 
is superior to them ? Here we might securely 
rest, but, when we find them openly supported 
by succeeding great men, besides the numberless 
others who, as explained in page 162 to 165, 
silently approve, the evidence and conviction 
become absolutely irresistible. Let me there¬ 
fore recommend the ladies to read only from the 
nineteenth paragraph to the end of Lecture 49, 
and first nine paragraphs of the next following, 
by the late very learned Dr. Thomas Brown, 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


211 


on the Philosophy of the Mind, which are 
devoted to an examination of the syllogistic 
theory, and written in a plain, and rather play¬ 
ful, style, considering his general seriousness. 
There they will find that “ worse than trifling 
art,” as he justly calls it, fairly exhibited to 
view, and impartially examined in all its 
bearings, by an upright and competent judge. 
Here is matter for another tremendous laugh— 
sending ladies to read philosophy ! Aye indeed 
the sublime “philosophy” of syllogistic trickery 
—but, lest our worthy anti-knowledge leaguers 
should get into convulsions, I must administer 
something to allay their fearful risibility. Akin 
to Adam Smith’s removal from the chair of logic 
in Glasgow, Dr. Brown, one of the most profound 
reasoners of our times, was refused it in 
Edinburgh, though no one could then fill it 
so efficiently ! But his sentiments on the “worse 
than trifling art” were known, and he too was 
appointed professor of Moral Philosophy in 
order to quiet him. He there proved, however, 
to be a little too honest for management, and, in 
that situation, he had the courage, though it 
hasarded his prospects in life, to deliver those 
two lectures to which I now invite the attention 
of my female readers. There is not much here, 
as I apprehend, to excite laughter—indeed 
college proceedings too often “make the judi¬ 
cious grieve.” 

Is it to be endured that, to keep up a gross 
imposture, weak or designing men should lay 
down a rule, that none of the other sex can 


212 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


comprehend the awful mysteries of syllogistic 
“ science,” to which, nevertheless, boys of 
fifteen are admitted? This is making a rare 
distinction truly between male and female 
intellect. So then their mothers, who may be 
forty or fifty years’ old, must not even ask what 
this questionable logic means, though their sons, 
not yet weaned off from tops and marbles, 
are deemed wise enough for its study! Will 
they any longer, I seriously ask them, submit to 
such a degradation—such a contemptuous insult 
to their understanding? If they do, then let 
them rest satisfied to be held as inferior beings 
in the scale of intellectual creation. They have 
as good a right, nay it is their duty, to inquire 
about what their sons as well as their daughters 
are learning. For this it is not necessary to 
to know Greek or Latin. There are now 
either literal or free translations of all the 
classics, and they should examine at least those 
for school and college use. Nor would it be 
amiss to look into some others that are not 
taught there. For, by reading certain portions 
that are omitted through mere shame, they will 
be the better enabled to judge of the shocking 
and revolting principles of heathenism altogether. 
This might seem to be an arduous task, but 
how could mothers be better employed than in 
qualifying themselves to oppose an educational 
system so prejudicial to their offspring ? The 
labor would not, however, be so great as it 
might appear. Many of them have readily 
gone through the entire of Scott’s novels, poems 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


213 


and letters, and all the classics necessary to 
be read are not perhaps half so bulky. Thus, 
since they may pass Euclid and every thing 
concerning mathematics, optics, astronomy, 
mechanics, statics, hydrostatics, or such studies 
as do not affect the morals, they could easily 
accomplish the perusal of those famous works 
destined for the edification of youth. Let them 
look particularly to the “worse than trifling” 
logic, from any knowledge of which they have 
been, I may say till now, so insolently prohibited. 
The mind is much biassed by whatever plan 
of reasoning is early instilled, and it is only the 
few who have power to shake off its influence 
in mature years. It behoves every mother, 
therefore, to see that her son be taught an 
honest system. I have shown, by unquestionable 
testimony, that the Baconian is the only honest 
and rational method, and that Aristotle’s is 
calculated for opinionative petulance, and to 
warp and mislead the judgment. The two 
systems are now exposed—-the rubbish is 
removed that prevented them from being 
generally understood, and mothers should do 
their duty where fathers will not. 

I have only glanced at what “ some persons,” 
as Locke’s biographer significantly says in my 
quotation, page 138, are doing with respect to 
education. No one, surely, will accuse the 
colleges of intentionally favoring any thing 
bordering on irreligion. Their greatest enemies 
could not do that, and yet it is to be feared that 
they are, by teaching a dogmatically accom- 
N 


214 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


modating logic, and an unqualified admiration 
of pagan writers, unintentionally promoting that 
bane of society, religious infidelity or free 
thinking, and also laxity of morals. I hope 
yet to have an opportunity of going into that 
subject at the length which its importance 
demands, and I must now content myself with 
observing, that “ some persons” know' well that 
I have been necessarily obliged to touch lightly 
on what is called classical learning. Yes 
necessarily, for they know that my hands are 
in a manner tied up, and that I dare not soil 
my paper with even an allusion to the horrid 
depravity of their favorite poet Virgil, whose 
praise they are never tired of sounding. 

But, lest they may impose on the uninformed 
by alleging that history, however revolting, 
should not be falsified for any purpose, I must 
anticipate such petty deception by observing, 
that what I condemn is not concerned with the 
validity of history. It is to the poets I allude, 
who absolutely sing the praises of the most 
shocking and disgusting vices. Juvenal is the 
only one who boldly lashed corruption, and yet 
he, when attacking certain licentiousness of his 
day, proposes a corrective at which human nature 
shudders, and turns with horror from the monster 
who could deliberately publish that which 
would be enough to blanch the sable cheek of the 
African savage. And yet they who teach the 
poetry of those heathens, without any other notes 
than what serve to explain the beauty of the 
composition, are the men w'ho express a holy 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


215 


indignation against Swift, and who scruple to 
admit a monument to Lord Byron in West¬ 
minster abbey ! Why the worst of their poems 
are morality itself in comparison to those of 
Virgil or Juvenal, to whom I verily believe 
there would be no objection to erect a cenotaph, 
though, to the great honor of gospel light, the 
most abandoned or profligate Christian never 
wrote any thing half so impious or scandalous 
as what we find in the “ classics.” 

Let not “some persons” think that I write 
unadvisedly as respects the ladies. I am fully 
aware of what will be said, and the affected 
indignation that will be excited, on that head. 
“ What! Desire religious mothers to read what 
has been, through decency, omitted even in the 
classic-admiring universities !!! Oh ! Oh !! 
Oh!!!” Yes truly. My worthy pious friends 
you may multiply notes of admiration to infinity, 
but you shall not stop me from my purpose. 
Well do you know, that what I allude to cannot 
corrupt them. You know that, from its very 
nature, it can only arouse their horror and 
detestation, and that is what you fear. Yes. 
That is what alarms you, and I tell you that all 
your mock affectation of delicacy will not avail. 
The vile morality of your “ classic” writers 
must be fairly exposed, and no longer held up 
for the admiration of our youth. Dear me how 
innocent you are ! Y ou never heard, not you, 
of a Madan or a Davidson, who commisseratively 
furnished all the omitted portions in literal 
English, and which are, at this moment, in the 


216 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


hands of every schoolboy learning Latin. But 
you never heard of this no more than of the 

dread Jupiter’s-1 thought to mention it, 

but my courage fails. A more fitting oppor¬ 
tunity will yet be presented for unmasking the 
infamous conceptions of, what we are told to * 
call, “ classical taste.” 

The mischief is, in fact, already done to its 
extent, and it is but cruel mockery to any longer 
affect delicacy. It only now remains for the 
well disposed to repair the damages, and to 
arrest the further progress of heathenish con¬ 
tagion. Even setting aside the disgusting gross- 
ness of pagan writers, their general principles 
are injurious. The learned French jesuit 
Sanadon, who most laboriously collated and 
reviewed Horace a century ago, cites one of his 
odes to show that he was an Epicurean, and 
that he believed in the mortality of the soul, 
though he strives to generally conceal it through 
policy, and is constantly invoking the gods. 
Mortality here means, that human death is the 
same as that of a dog or a rat, or, properly 
speaking, that we have no souls. That is 
bad enough, but Epicurism goes further—it 
is atheism. Its followers attributed every thing 
to Nature or chance, and that is atheism in 
the strict sense. Despicable as was the mytho¬ 
logy it at least acknowledged a Providence, 
though in a bungling manner, and also a future 
state, but Epicurus denied both one and the 
other. Now Sanadon cites another ode of 
Horace to show, that he believed in this impious 



OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


217 


doctrine of u fortuitous jumbling of atoms" or 
chance, and yet this man of no religion—this 
preacher of abstemiousness in mockery and of 
voluptuousness in earnest—this ATHEIST, I 
say, is held up to youth as the great enlightened 
guide and sage moralist! No writer is so often 
quoted by the learned, and every line of him 
is taught even in the entrarfce course prescribed 
to our schools by the colleges. 

I must not dismiss Sanadon thus lightly, for 
I have here “a crow to pluck." Never was 
there a more elaborate or pains-taking editor 
of Horace. As a restorer , he astonishes us 
by his prodigious industry, extensive reading, 
and indefatigable perseverance. He did not 
leave a single word of his author unconsidered 
—he fixes the chronological accuracy of all his 
pieces—gives his age when he wrote each— 
removes verses, lines, and sometimes even 
solitary words, into their presumed locality 
elsewhere—corrects the errors of former trans¬ 
cribers and commentators, and makes a new 
arrangement altogether in text, disposition and 
order. We may judge of his unwearied dili¬ 
gence by one expression in his preface,' “ Of 
all the pieces of Horace I leave but three in 
their ancient situation." He further says, “ I 
every where prefix new titles and new argu¬ 
ments. One piece I sometimes divide into two, 
and of several I sometimes make but one. I 
weed out several verses, which have sometimes 
appeared under the poet’s name ; in some others 
I change the received distribution." For every 


218 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


alteration he gives his reasons at length, and we 
must not forget that he also translated his 
author. 

Yet the able article in the last Quarterly 
Review, No. 124, on Mr. Tate’s Horatius 
Restitutus, does not say a word of Sanadon. 
But for this I do not think that the reviewers 
should be blamed. We cannot reasonably 
expect that, amidst their varied literary duties, 
they should know every author on each par¬ 
ticular subject. Indeed we ought rather to 
wonder at the intimate knowledge those all¬ 
work critics commonly evince, especially when 
we know that there cannot be afforded a 
separate writer for each department of art or 
science. He who now reviewes a classic may 
be next called upon for strictures on astronomy, 
rail-roads, chemistry, mathematics or politics, 
and here it is that they are very differently cir¬ 
cumstanced from Mr. Tate, who tell us that he 
was closely engaged with Horace “for more 
than one third of a century.” Now, though 
I have not seen Mr. Tate’s work, I presume 
that, if he had mentioned Sanadon, the Quar¬ 
terly reviewers would not have passed him by 
entirely, and, assuming the omission to lie at his 
door, what can he say in defence ? After 
thirty-four years’ study of his author it would be 
a reproach, nay he ought himself to deem it an 
insult, to suppose him unacquainted with 
Sanadon—his fellow-laborer in the Horatian 
vineyard, and who toiled so learnedly in the 
same restituting vocation. Mr Tate calls \i\& 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


219 


work “ Horatius Restitutus; or the Books of 
Horace arranged in chronological order,” which 
is also the grand object of Sanadon, and 
therefore these two questions obviously arise, 
Did Mr. Tate think Sanadon beneath his 
notice ? or Did he draw unacknowledged 
information from his ample but neglected 
stores ? 

The Quarterly reviewers dwell forcibly on 
the benefits of having, through a consecutive 
order like Mr. Tate’s, a view of Rome, by such 
a master-hand as Horace, at the very interesting 
period in which he lived. Now let them read 
what Sanadon says, after many other observa¬ 
tions on the utility of a just chronological 
arrangement:— 

“ But the most considerable advantage is, 
that in reading this excellent poet we shall read 
a series of faithful history of the first Emperor 
of Rome, written by an author his contemporary, 
and adorned with all the graces of the most 
charming poetry. This alone should suffice 
to justify the new order I have given to the 
works of my author.” 

After that I think they will admit, that the 
merit of Mr. Tate’s “ Restitutus ” cannot be 
fairly estimated without a diligent comparison 
with that of Sanadon, Mr. Tate’s may be 
superior, but that must be tried. 

I shall make no apology for this digression. 
On the contrary, I claim thanks from the En¬ 
glish and Scotch for introducing the forgotten 
Sanadon, because he does full justice to theit*' 


220 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


learned countrymen, Bentley and Cunningham. 
He calls them “ the best critics of our times,” 
and acknowledges that he has “ chiefly” profited 
by their labors. Such praise from an erudite 
foreigner is always grateful, though I grant that 
he frequently disagrees with Bentley, while he 
pays Cunningham the high compliment of sel¬ 
dom dissenting from his judgment. 

Since I have digressed I shall trespass further, 
in order to insert a remark that should have 
appeared in page 23, when giving the meaning 
of peripatetic. Some over-classical writers have, 
without any corresponding explanation, called 
Christ “ the divine peripatetic,” because he 
sometimes lectured , or delivered his precepts, 
while walking with his disciples. The religious 
propriety of this application may be questioned, 
inasmuch as the word has, for centuries, been 
understood to exclusively mean a follower of 
Aristotle, or, used adjectively, as pertaining to 
his doctrines. Yet, where no irreverence is 
intended, it might seem captious to raise an ob¬ 
jection, and I notice it only for the purpose of 
warning my unlearned readers, who might be 
puzzled or misled by the expression, that they 
are not for a moment to imagine that our Re¬ 
deemer paid any respect to the pagan philoso¬ 
pher. The learned are not always aware of 
the perplexing doubts, or the false and injurious 
inferences, that they raise by such unnecessary 
freedoms with language, and they too commonly 
forget that their books are liable to be seen by 
ordinary readers. We are not bound to know 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


221 


any more than the common dictionary meaning 
of peripatetic, and is it not unworthy sport for 
the literati to make a plain man assert in com¬ 
pany, upon what he may deem safe authority, 
that our Saviour was an Aristotelian ? 

To resume our subject of classical instruc¬ 
tion—when the matter comes to plain speaking, 
and an open investigation seems now unavoid¬ 
able, people will be shocked to think how long 
a corruptive, and an anti-christian, system of 
education has prevailed, and the public voice 
will irresistibly demand a change. But its ad¬ 
vocates know that the ablest men might write 
in vain for an alteration. They tremble justly 
at enlightening the female world on this subject, 
because they know that reformation will be then 
inevitable, and once more I say, that no hypo¬ 
critical cant about modesty will signify a jot. 
The smooth faced declaimers may ring that 
tocsin as loud as they please—it will serve only 
to rally the foes of revolting turpitude, inde¬ 
cency and heathenism. Along with the pagan- 
christian ethical education down goes, as a matter 
of course, the 66 worse than trifling logic,” and 
then grave deception’s “ occupation is gone.” 

It cannot be said, that “ the system has 
worked well”—the common answer to all who 
desire any reformation. If space permitted I 
could show that it never did work well, but I 
must now confine myself to almost a single 
observation. There is a much greater indiffer¬ 
ence to virtue, taken in its extended sense, 
among the fashionable who have been classically 


222 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


educated, than among those who have not. It 
cannot well be otherwise under the plan pursued, 
though there have been, and will be always I 
hope, many eminent exceptions. For, as it is 
not easy to imagine any thing more opposed to 
Christian precepts than pagan morality, when 
we are taught at an early age to admire it, and 
to regard classical as a word including every 
thing that is chaste or beautiful, can we be 
surprised at finding the pure doctrine of Scrip¬ 
ture so neglected ? It is almost as hard to 
admire one and revere the other properly, as it 
would be to profess two different religions at 
once. 

What would be thought of him who should 
recommend, through some wild notions of reli¬ 
gious liberalism, that a chapter in the Koran 
should be read in conjunction with one in the 
Bible? Would he not be deemed a silly fanatic, 
or denounced as a fit object for legal prosecu¬ 
tion ? Yet the approved mode of classical 
tuition is no less monstrous and incompatible—it 
is teaching a reverence for heathenism and 
Christianity together. 

The change which I so earnestly advise is 
now especially desirable. In fact no time ought 
to be lost, for the enemy is at our very gates. 
Dr. Strauss, a German savant , has recently 
issued a third edition of his “ Life of Jesus,” 
the object of which is to show that Christ was 
but a common man, and that all his miracles 
were either fabrications or clever deceptions ! 
When we consider that this audaciously bias- 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


223 


phemous work, though comprising only two 
plain octavo volumes, sells in London at the now 
very high price of a guinea and a-half, and that 
two editions were exhausted in little more than 
twelve months, we may judge of the dangerous 
interest that it excites. Here is one of the 
most daring attempts ever known to uproot 
Christianity, for Strauss attacks no sect—his 
efforts being all directed to the one point, that 
of proving, or rather a Christian should say 
endeavouring to prove, our Saviour to be an 
impostor! Are we then, by continuing the 
teaching of a trickish logic and an admiration 
of heathen impurity, to aid this wicked wretch— 
to be at least indirectly his allies, in his profane 
war against Christianity ? We see the deistical 
wolf prowling in our Gospel fields, and shall 
we still hesitate to secure the sheep ? 

If virtuous mothers knew the full extent of 
the impositions that are practised on them—if 
they really knew what lessons their sons are 
getting under the high sounding name of “ clas¬ 
sical learning,” and assisted by a truth-pervert¬ 
ing, and “ worse than trifling ” logic—if they 
knew what are called improvements in education, 
as for instance that expurgata editions, or those 
purified of the passages offensive or hurtful to 
morals, which were once in use, are now ex¬ 
ploded—if they knew, I say, what is doing in 
colleges, which give the law to schools, they 
would exert that control to which they are legi¬ 
timately entitled, and effect a reformation 
“ most devoutly to be wished for.” I repeat 




224 


OLD AND NEW LOGIC. 


that they have a legitimate right. For, since 
men have so heinously abused the high trust 
reposed in them, there is now no other resource 
than in female interference. 


I am barely in time to notice the Course of Trinity 
College, Dublin, for 1839, which is just announced. 
There is an augmentation of the old logic, while 
Bacon remains as before, which we may presume to 
be in conformity to the judicious determination of our 
British universities. Such are the auspicious pros¬ 
pects for Christianity, the diffusion of light, the spread 
of sound principles, the promotion of honest reason¬ 
ing, the-But the printer is waiting for'copy, 

and I must now content myself with three notes of 
admiration—one of them for ^ollege wisdom in 
general, another for its unflinching veneration of 
heathen precepts, and the third for its magnanimous 
contempt of Bacon’s Idols and Induction ! !: 


TH& END. 


William Holden, Printer, 10, Abbey-street, Dublin. 













/ 


V 















































* 







































1 







• f 









































^ • 



































